Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Yes, because your examples were already stopped OUTSIDE the barriers and therefore had the time to get out as they felt (rightly or wrongly) that they'd waited too long, squint to read it as the font is tiny and then get back in to make the call.
How's a reversing HGV driver who's realised that he's stuck across a crossing going to do that? They're not, are they? They're just going to reverse straight off to avoid causing an accident. If he'd gone straight on he'd also have not been obeying the HC.
The Rules say: DO NOT REVERSE OVER A LEVEL CROSIING, seems quite a simple instruction really, he should have got out of his lorry walked to the crossing to see if there was any information he could have used, if, as some have said he was delivering for Net Rail, then he would have a contact number he could have used, who would have either called the people that needed to know, or given the driver a number to call, but as with most things these days, takes too long, cant wait, lets just go
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Rules say: DO NOT REVERSE OVER A LEVEL CROSIING, seems quite a simple instruction really, he should have got out of his lorry walked to the crossing to see if there was any information he could have used, if, as some have said he was delivering for Net Rail, then he would have a contact number he could have used, who would have either called the people that needed to know, or given the driver a number to call, but as with most things these days, takes too long, cant wait, lets just go
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No this is a crossing controlled by Colchester, someone wanted to see a sign with info on it that is used (at least in Anglia !)
Also observing the load in the recent incident, wondering whether the driver had a contact number for anyone on site to take delivery, and details of just where to drop off, and whether such a person could/ should have been called upon to act as banksman, or what HSE refers to as a signaller, to assist/ direct reversal.
At my old location, we had instructions to watch al lowering sequences, press stop if needed, anything trapped in the middle, we used to raise again and 'free' them, person trapped, again raise the barriers, and restart the sequence.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
well all I can say is that it is a BT number, and it can't be that hard to read, as we got / get many calls complaining the crossing was 'closed' too long !
also the driver in this instance did not obey / adhere to the Highway Code:
Rule 293
Controlled Crossings. Most crossings have traffic light signals with a steady amber light, twin flashing red stop lights (see ‘Light signals controlling traffic’ and ‘Traffic signs’) and an audible alarm for pedestrians. They may have full, half or no barriers.
You MUST always obey the flashing red stop lights.
You MUST stop behind the white line across the road.
Keep going if you have already crossed the white line when the amber light comes on.
Do not reverse onto or over a controlled crossing.
You MUST wait if a train goes by and the red lights continue to flash. This means another train will be passing soon.
Only cross when the lights go off and barriers open.
Never zig-zag around half-barriers, they lower automatically because a train is approaching.
At crossings where there are no barriers, a train is approaching when the lights show.
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
and the not reversing is not a "MUST NOT" requirement....
(Acknowledging "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.")
Yes, because your examples were already stopped OUTSIDE the barriers and therefore had the time to get out as they felt (rightly or wrongly) that they'd waited too long, squint to read it as the font is tiny and then get back in to make the call.
How's a reversing HGV driver who's realised that he's stuck across a crossing going to do that? They're not, are they? They're just going to reverse straight off to avoid causing an accident. If he'd gone straight on he'd also have not been obeying the HC.
There is plenty of room for the lorry driver to have stopped without blocking the road completely between the crossing and the canal bridge, got out of his cab, and checked first.
"DO NOT..." seems quite an obvious and simple instruction to me ! If a driver cannot understand what 'Do not' means is quite worrying
Question arises do all regions have the same signage as Anglia ? Contact Number of controlling box. Grid Ref, Line Ref and mileage and name of crossing.
The pedant in me identifies that the wording in the Highway code does not say ALL such rules are identified by the use of the words 'MUST/ MUST NOT'; it suggests that some such rules ...
It is also possible to argue that this wording from the Code is wrong in its interpretation of these directive words: This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’. To my mind 'do' and 'do not' a re not advisory - they are instructions.
On such understandings may much turn in court.
The placing, visibility and compliance of signs may also be questioned- for instance regarding the 2.3m 7'-6" height, 12'0" width and 5 tonne 'warning' 'restriction' and 'order' signage may also be questioned.
I also note on Google Maps a small sign on a low pole at the canal bridge indicating National Cycle Route 5- so quite a high likelihood of cyclists on Wedgwood Drive unfamiliar with their surroundings, together with visitors to the World of Wedgwood- so need for vigilance and observation particularly important, especially in the circumstance that the driver may have been somewhat preoccupied, as witnessed by this 'ill-advised' and dangerous movement of a slow-moving, long or low vehicle. Indeed, and maybe in the circumstances unsurprisingly, it doesn't seem on the video to be particularly slow.
I've been on another site visit for you (honestly, the things I do for you) and I can confirm there is no phone number to call or any suggestion of what to do in an emergency.
At no extra cost to you, I also visited Barlaston and Alsager and neither of those have a public phone or phone number either.
The consensus of opinion on here appears to be that it doesn't matter as the barrier being ripped off stops the train anyway, and therefore everything was working correctly.
I do think Network Rail are probably regretting releasing the video though, it's caused a lot of uproar locally. It's not as clear cut as they thought. I have it on good authority that the lorry driver isn't facing any charges. Although I believe investigations are continuing so things could, potentially, change. But I think the investigation is more to pacify the locals who remain unimpressed with Network Rail.
I've been on another site visit for you (honestly, the things I do for you) and I can confirm there is no phone number to call or any suggestion of what to do in an emergency.
At no extra cost to you, I also visited Barlaston and Alsager and neither of those have a public phone or phone number either.
I checked out two LCs in Scotland, Stevenston (CCTV) and Kirknewton (OD); The former has no warning signs or phones, the latter has phones but no signs. But the railway's means of ensuring safety, ie that no vehicle or person trapped on the LC is struck by a train, is by checking that the crossing is clear before a train is signalled, by a human in the case of CCTV LCs and by radar at OD LCs.
The consensus of opinion on here appears to be that it doesn't matter as the barrier being ripped off stops the train anyway, and therefore everything was working correctly.
As above, the Signaller is also required to ensure that no person or vehicle is trapped on the LC before signalling a train across it.
At the end of the day what occurred at Wedgwood was an incredibly rare and unusual event; In my 32 year operational railway career, dealing with numerous LC incidents, nothing remotely similar ever occurred. And I have to say, from watching the video, reversing such a large vehicle along the public highway was surely a dubious manoeuvre even if there was no LC present ?
I believe that in a situation like this there is a natural tendency to sympathise with the sole individual involved as opposed to the faceless entity that is Network Rail, and of course it is understandable that the public do no know how each type of LC operates.
I believe that in a situation like this there is a natural tendency to sympathise with the sole individual involved as opposed to the faceless entity that is Network Rail, and of course it is understandable that the public do no know how each type of LC operates.
I don't think it's solely that. It's also that NR - including the Route Director, who really should know better - saw fit to make a highly inflammatory press statement making out that the incident was solely down to the truck driver's carelessness.
Of course, that's far from the whole story - and in actual fact, I'd say that NR shoulder the vast majority of the blame here. Primarily for organising a delivery across one of their LCs without ensuring proper arrangements were in place for access and egress.
I don't think it's solely that. It's also that NR - including the Route Director, who really should know better - saw fit to make a highly inflammatory press statement making out that the incident was solely down to the truck driver's carelessness.
Of course, that's far from the whole story - and in actual fact, I'd say that NR shoulder the vast majority of the blame here. Primarily for organising a delivery across one of their LCs without ensuring proper arrangements were in place for access and egress.
Have I missed something here? weather or not the truck was driving across or reversing across doesn't really matter the barriers were lowered and the crossing wasn't clear, isn't that the real issue here?
Have I missed something here? weather Whether or not the truck was driving across or reversing across doesn't really matter the barriers were lowered and the crossing wasn't clear, isn't that the real issue here?
Possibly. If you have another look at the video footage, the barriers didn't start coming down until the truck was already halfway reversed over the crossing. Can't really tell from the angle of the CCTV when the LC warning lights would have started.
Possibly. If you have another look at the video footage, the barriers didn't start coming down until the truck was already halfway reversed over the crossing.
I don't think it's solely that. It's also that NR - including the Route Director, who really should know better - saw fit to make a highly inflammatory press statement making out that the incident was solely down to the truck driver's carelessness.
Of course, that's far from the whole story - and in actual fact, I'd say that NR shoulder the vast majority of the blame here. Primarily for organising a delivery across one of their LCs without ensuring proper arrangements were in place for access and egress.
I don't think it's solely that. It's also that NR - including the Route Director, who really should know better - saw fit to make a highly inflammatory press statement making out that the incident was solely down to the truck driver's carelessness.
This has been discussed before; Network Rail's tendency to go for MAXIMUM FULL VOLUME CONDEMNATION of a third party with every incident, before deciding whether in fact that's appropriate. It's something in the company's culture that needs tweaking.
Of course, that's far from the whole story - and in actual fact, I'd say that NR shoulder the vast majority of the blame here. Primarily for organising a delivery across one of their LCs without ensuring proper arrangements were in place for access and egress.
Its not Bingo at all. No one here knows the details of the delivery, what was arranged, why the carpark was locked or why the recipient of the delivery wasn't there. Either way none of that absolves the driver from his actions...unless you post on RUK of course. As for why the barriers were lowered that has already been explained, you might not like or agree with it but that makes no difference. No one seems to be batting an eyelid with the fact AHBs are not monitored by cameras and neither are obstacle detector crossings.
Its not Bingo at all. No one here knows the details of the delivery, what was arranged, why the carpark was locked or why the recipient of the delivery wasn't there. Either way none of that absolves the driver from his actions...unless you post on RUK of course.
Nobody is suggesting the driver is blameless, but Network Rail have to shoulder most of the blame.
They organised a delivery using a very large vehicle to a level crossing which has significant access problems, and, which anyone who visited the site could see, would present problems for the driver necessitating him to reverse. For whatever reason, NR were not present to accept the delivery. This level crossing has a phone which is behind a locked gate and no sign telling drivers who to contact if there is a problem.
If someone got injured or killed because of this and RAIB became involved you could bet a number of recommendations would be made to NR, and they'd be for the high jump.
You or I driving that vehicle might well have had the nous to phone NR or our boss, but infrastructure isn't built on the assumptions that people who work or used to work in the industry are going to be the only ones using it; it's built to the lowest common denominator.
Let's see if the driver gets charged with anything.
The barriers only start to lower some time after process is initiated, as the wigwags have to operate for a few seconds first. The lorry was probably not on the crossing when the signaller pressed the button.
On a busy road the crossing may have a continuous stream of traffic so the crossing will never be clear until the signaller initiates the process. It is only after the barriers are down that a check has to be made that the crossing is clear. Provided that check was made, the signaller would then not have given "line clear" to the approaching train.
The Highway Code is quite clear that anything which has legal force includes the word "MUST". Failure to observe other rules may be evidence to support an accusation of the catch-all "driving without due care" but it is not a "strict liability" rule. As far as I am aware there is nothing in the Road Traffic Acts forbidding reversing.
I believe that in a situation like this there is a natural tendency to sympathise with the sole individual involved as opposed to the faceless entity that is Network Rail, and of course it is understandable that the public do no know how each type of LC operates.
What has particularly upset the locals is that it was a bit of a suicide hotspot. Two local teenagers committed suicide quite close together. Network Rail, after local campaigning, installed cameras to try to prevent anymore.
It now turns out they don't monitor the CCTV and even released a video showing they don't watch them. Its touched a raw nerve locally. At best, it's thoughtless and crass of Network Rail, at worst it'll raise the suicide rates again as people now know the cameras aren't watched. Network Rail haven't come out of this favourably at all.
Their original argument that the lorry driver put lives at risk is now being mocked because it's Network Rail who lower barriers on things and aren't watching. Railway staff can argue that's the safe way, but it's not winning anyone over in Wedgwood or Barlaston. Indeed Network Rail have made a bit of a laughing stock of themselves. They really should have just kept quiet about the whole thing.
Its not Bingo at all. No one here knows the details of the delivery, what was arranged, why the carpark was locked or why the recipient of the delivery wasn't there. Either way none of that absolves the driver from his actions...unless you post on RUK of course. As for why the barriers were lowered that has already been explained, you might not like or agree with it but that makes no difference. No one seems to be batting an eyelid with the fact AHBs are not monitored by cameras and neither are obstacle detector crossings.
At the end of the day what occurred at Wedgwood was an incredibly rare and unusual event; In my 32 year operational railway career, dealing with numerous LC incidents, nothing remotely similar ever occurred. And I have to say, from watching the video, reversing such a large vehicle along the public highway was surely a dubious manoeuvre even if there was no LC present ?
It's a very straight road with good visibility and very quiet. Arguably that's the problem. If the visibility had been poorer the driver may not have reversed. Network Rail have confirmed the lorry driver would not have been able to see the level crossing lights flashing.
What has particularly upset the locals is that it was a bit of a suicide hotspot. Two local teenagers committed suicide quite close together. Network Rail, after local campaigning, installed cameras to try to prevent anymore.
It now turns out they don't monitor the CCTV and even released a video showing they don't watch them. Its touched a raw nerve locally. At best, it's thoughtless and crass of Network Rail, at worst it'll raise the suicide rates again as people now know the cameras aren't watched. Network Rail haven't come out of this favourably at all.
Their original argument that the lorry driver put lives at risk is now being mocked because it's Network Rail who lower barriers on things and aren't watching. Railway staff can argue that's the safe way, but it's not winning anyone over in Wedgwood or Barlaston. Indeed Network Rail have made a bit of a laughing stock of themselves. They really should have just kept quiet about the whole thing.
So what you want is for NR to re-write the Rule Book and insist that every controlled level crossing in the country has full "Mk 1 eyeball" coverage during every occasion that the crossing is operated; is that correct?
I can tell you of 3 old style Boxes where that is physically impossible unless you intend to fit them with CCTV equipment, and those aren't the only Boxes I am sure. Even in my Box where the Control Pedastal was almost right next to the window it was not always possible! And even when it was there were numerous occasions where lights were ignored, and yes I did have horse boxes from the racing stables reverse onto the crossing when the lights were flashing, even with BTP officers standing by them!
It's a very straight road with good visibility and very quiet. Arguably that's the problem. If the visibility had been poorer the driver may not have reversed. Network Rail have confirmed the lorry driver would not have been able to see the level crossing lights flashing.
Also observing the load in the recent incident, wondering whether the driver had a contact number for anyone on site to take delivery, and details of just where to drop off, and whether such a person could/ should have been called upon to act as banksman, or what HSE refers to as a signaller, to assist/ direct reversal.
What has particularly upset the locals is that it was a bit of a suicide hotspot. Two local teenagers committed suicide quite close together. Network Rail, after local campaigning, installed cameras to try to prevent anymore.
It now turns out they don't monitor the CCTV and even released a video showing they don't watch them. Its touched a raw nerve locally. At best, it's thoughtless and crass of Network Rail, at worst it'll raise the suicide rates again as people now know the cameras aren't watched. Network Rail haven't come out of this favourably at all.
Their original argument that the lorry driver put lives at risk is now being mocked because it's Network Rail who lower barriers on things and aren't watching. Railway staff can argue that's the safe way, but it's not winning anyone over in Wedgwood or Barlaston. Indeed Network Rail have made a bit of a laughing stock of themselves. They really should have just kept quiet about the whole thing.
On a point of order, the car park isn't locked, but permanently blocked off. And has been for many years.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's a very straight road with good visibility and very quiet. Arguably that's the problem. If the visibility had been poorer the driver may not have reversed. Network Rail have confirmed the lorry driver would not have been able to see the level crossing lights flashing.
Visibility of what, from where? The road eastward in the mirrors? Vehicles exiting from Wedgwood? The flashing lights? The track looking north over his shoulder for trains hurtling south; and looking south for Stoke-bound trains not calling at the open Wedgwood Station?
What is the line speed there?
I think there are 10-12 tph?
Maybe the driver thought he would have plenty of time between deciding to reverse and anything indicating anything coming- like lights flashing, claxons sounding, barriers descending, car ...? Like so many fools.
How long between a barrier being smashed by a vehicle ON the crossing and a train arriving having passed the 'protecting' signal? How much stopping time and distance including reaction, braking etc?
Ufton Nevert and Hixon come to mind- the latter just 15 miles or so from Wedgwood!
I wonder how much the newer residents of Wedgwood Park would have liked the price of their desirable residences hiked by a Section 106 contribution to a new rail bridge?
Anyone know any detail of the Travel Plan and associated monitoring that were part of the Planning Permission?
Visibility of what, from where? The road eastward in the mirrors? Vehicles exiting from Wedgwood? The flashing lights? The track looking north over his shoulder for trains hurtling south; and looking south for Stoke-bound trains not calling at the open Wedgwood Station?
What is the line speed there?
I think there are 10-12 tph?
Maybe the driver thought he would have plenty of time between deciding to reverse and anything indicating anything coming- like lights flashing, claxons sounding, barriers descending, car ...? Like so many fools.
How long between a barrier being smashed by a vehicle ON the crossing and a train arriving having passed the 'protecting' signal? How much stopping time and distance including reaction, braking etc?
Ufton Nevert and Hixon come to mind- the latter just 15 miles or so from Wedgwood!
I wonder how much the newer residents of Wedgwood Park would have liked the price of their desirable residences hiked by a Section 106 contribution to a new rail bridge?
Anyone know any detail of the Travel Plan and associated monitoring that were part of the Planning Permission?
Would it have been possible to stop a train then if need be?
He'd have had an excellent view of the road in his mirrors, it's very straight. Anyone coming out of Wedgwood has to give way. It's not a road drivers job to check railway lines are clear.
The wisdom on here is that the protecting signal is not cleared until the signaller has confirmed the crossing is clear. Railway staff don't check it's clear whilst lowering them. Therefore a train would have been able to stop. Thus making Network Rail look fools and incompetent for announcing that it placed trains in danger as it clearly didn't. Network Rail have scored a spectacular own goal with this.
I doubt many residents are too bothered as few will use the crossing. It goes onto country lanes and heading the other way is faster and easier. It's only relatively recently that the crossing has been open evenings and weekends anyway.
How long between a barrier being smashed by a vehicle ON the crossing and a train arriving having passed the 'protecting' signal? How much stopping time and distance including reaction, braking etc?
Ufton Nevert and Hixon come to mind- the latter just 15 miles or so from Wedgwood!
Would it have been possible to stop a train then if need be?
Ufton Nervert and Hixon were automatic crossings, not linked to the signals. In such cases drivers of slow moving vehicles have to informthe signallers so that they can manually set the relevant signals to danger for as long as necessary.
This is quite different - at a controlled crossing like this the protecting signal won't be cleared (and therefore a train shouldn't pass it) until the barriers are down and signaller has then checked the crossing is clear - and the signal can't be cleared if the barrier has broken off.
Consequently, no train should be able to approach such a crossing if it is not clear, unless a vehicle had crashed the barriers after they had been lowered - and even then the damaged barrier should return the protecting signal to danger, although possibly not in time to stop a train already close to the crossing.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
