More level crossing stupidity

[PaxVobiscum]

All three of the 'incidents' look faked to me.

The first one definitely looks edited, you can see the leaves on the left shift when the shot of the train gets superimposed (poor choice of location there), the massive bloom effect to cover the end of the train passing is a blatant giveaway, and they did a horrible job of the colour correction. So long as I picked a better location for the shoot, I could have done a more convincing job with about 15 minutes of editing.

The second one with the cyclist also looks as if it was staged by a stunt rider. Most real cyclists would have grabbed a fistful of rear brake and hit the deck as their rear wheel skidded and washed out underneath them, probably seeing them slide underneath the barrier instead of the more dramatic collision with the barrier.

The third one has been filmed from a typical CCTV camera location, but the footage is clearly too good to be from a proper CCTV camera - again, something that more competent editing (i.e. adding a lo-fi look effect) would have solved.

The sound effect at the end is clearly a recorded effect added in.

You are havin a laff, right?

Apart from
"The sound effect at the end is clearly a recorded effect added in"
this is all just so much nonsense that I almost don't know where to begin (framerate of original CCTV footage would do though). I was going to take the time to address your points one at a time, but I doubt it is worth trying to convince you. With respect sir, pseudo technical nonsense trying to justify a conspiracy theory.

You missed one - "the incorrect aspect ratio of the first incident clearly shows this has been edited to make the train look longer"

 

[Wolfie]

Do they ask for the details of the accident? I seem to recall that there's just a form with some tickboxes - "Yes I've had an accident in the last 5 years; only 1; other driver was not at fault."

Yes, but you also need to declare convictions and that will lead to more questions...

 

[andrewkeith5]

I think I'm possibly in the minority in holding the view that excessive and (to road users) seemingly unnecessarily long closure times are likely to encourage misuse. We have one crossing where we're instructed to delay starting the sequence for stopping trains to minimise the closure time, meaning that the train passes the distant at caution and is checked heavily by the approach released home signal (the next signal, the section signal, is the one that protects the crossing, a little way beyond the platform). I accept that this introduces some additional risks into the operation (SPAD trap, risk of anticipating the home signal coming off etc), and also a noticeably slower approach, but very much believe that the overall risk is probably reduced. Regular users might know that they can 'get away' with dodging around the lowered entrance barriers to avoid what they know will be a long wait (though with a significant risk of being prosecuted), then encounter an AHB crossing and try the same thing - which they're rather less likely to escape from unscathed!

Very much in agreement with that - keeping any person waiting for excessively long times is only going to encourage them to ignore the warning.

The example at Crawley is particularly frustrating for me as for almost a year I lived 'just the other side' of the crossing and, with the frequency of the trains, it was at the stage of being utterly infuriating how much of my life was wasted sitting on the road going nowhere with no trains anywhere nearby! I still don't understand why the barriers are lowered for Down trains before they have even stopped at the platform. Surely it would be far more sensible to close the barriers a few seconds before allowing the train off the platform and leave them open on the approach - it isn't exactly a fast stretch of line.

 

[Llanigraham]

Very much in agreement with that - keeping any person waiting for excessively long times is only going to encourage them to ignore the warning.

The example at Crawley is particularly frustrating for me as for almost a year I lived 'just the other side' of the crossing and, with the frequency of the trains, it was at the stage of being utterly infuriating how much of my life was wasted sitting on the road going nowhere with no trains anywhere nearby! I still don't understand why the barriers are lowered for Down trains before they have even stopped at the platform. Surely it would be far more sensible to close the barriers a few seconds before allowing the train off the platform and leave them open on the approach - it isn't exactly a fast stretch of line.

Until a train trying to stop at the station doesn't!
Bang!!

 

[tsr]

Surely it would be far more sensible to close the barriers a few seconds before allowing the train off the platform and leave them open on the approach - it isn't exactly a fast stretch of line.

It's helpful to have the barriers lowered and the crossings cleared before a 12 coach Down (Horsham-bound) train arrives. The dispatch process can take longer depending on how far the conductor has to walk back to check everything/everyone is clear of the doors and safe, and a proceed aspect on the signal only helps with being able to start said dispatch promptly. Obviously this is not to be at the expense of safety and one must never assume the crossing will be cleared. Late-running trains do sometimes have the joy at sitting at a red signal at Crawley on the Down.

 

[Yabbadabba]

Very much in agreement with that - keeping any person waiting for excessively long times is only going to encourage them to ignore the warning.

The example at Crawley is particularly frustrating for me as for almost a year I lived 'just the other side' of the crossing and, with the frequency of the trains, it was at the stage of being utterly infuriating how much of my life was wasted sitting on the road going nowhere with no trains anywhere nearby! I still don't understand why the barriers are lowered for Down trains before they have even stopped at the platform. Surely it would be far more sensible to close the barriers a few seconds before allowing the train off the platform and leave them open on the approach - it isn't exactly a fast stretch of line.

Assuming that the signaller spends all their time sitting watching the crossings at Crawley. Oh but hang on a minute they are also responsible for the safety of the railway from Three Bridges exclusive and Dorking excliusive through Horsham to Arundel exclusive, roughly 40 route miles. Dealing with attachments at Horsham with the required phone calls at the same time that the slows are booked through Crawley on an signalling control panel that has to be the best part of 60ft long. To delay the lowering sequence in the manor you ask would delay trains at Horsham as you can't be in two places at the same time (not until you genetically engineer human arms to be about 20/30ft long), and there are a few people on this forum who travel on the Arun Valley who really love their trains delayed even more just for the sake of pleasing car users in Crawley.

 

[martynbristow]

Assuming that the signaller spends all their time sitting watching the crossings at Crawley. Oh but hang on a minute they are also responsible for the safety of the railway from Three Bridges exclusive and Dorking excliusive through Horsham to Arundel exclusive, roughly 40 route miles. Dealing with attachments at Horsham with the required phone calls at the same time that the slows are booked through Crawley on an signalling control panel that has to be the best part of 60ft long. To delay the lowering sequence in the manor you ask would delay trains at Horsham as you can't be in two places at the same time (not until you genetically engineer human arms to be about 20/30ft long), and there are a few people on this forum who travel on the Arun Valley who really love their trains delayed even more just for the sake of pleasing car users in Crawley.

i think the issue mentioned above about crossing times is in a fairly recent RAIB report somewhere on the Norwich Main Line. The issue is about trains which DON'T stop at the station. Not living in the area I don't know the services but there is a risk of a train not stopping in the platform and entering the crossing, the RAIB pointed out the activation points for fast trains . Maghull up here has a crossing which is activated upon the train entering the section not when its ready for departure. A couple of trains may pass the station at speed.
You can vaguely get it from this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRaO72ios6U along with a lot of camera waving.

I imagine it would be *safe* to only close the crossing on departure but given the fatal consequences its better to be safe!
**Raib Report: http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/140114_R012014_Motts_Lane.pdf It relates to a cyclist on a foot crossing but the principles are similar.

 

[Tomnick]

i think the issue mentioned above about crossing times is in a fairly recent RAIB report somewhere on the Norwich Main Line. The issue is about trains which DON'T stop at the station. Not living in the area I don't know the services but there is a risk of a train not stopping in the platform and entering the crossing

The issue at Motts Lane was indeed the excessively long period of warning of approaching trains, though in slightly different circumstances. It stemmed from improper use of the stopping/non-stopping controls for Down trains, provided exactly to ensure that the crossing wasn't activated too early for stopping trains - working in that manner certainly mitigated against the SPAD risk and consequences, but clearly introduced other significant risks into the operation that wouldn't perhaps be immediately apparent.

Until a train trying to stop at the station doesn't!
Bang!!

I imagine it would be *safe* to only close the crossing on departure but given the fatal consequences its better to be safe!
**Raib Report: http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/140114_R012014_Motts_Lane.pdf It relates to a cyclist on a foot crossing but the principles are similar.

If it's considered that there's an unacceptable risk of a train passing the protecting signal at danger and running onto the open crossing, then surely mitigation would be provided either through the interlocking or by special instruction? At one of our boxes, with a crossing immediately beyond the station platform, we're not allowed to signal a train towards the crossing's protecting signal unless the barriers are down or the train is booked to call (so it's ok to run one into the platform with the barriers up, as long as it's booked to call). At another (with no station), "Stowmarket Control", recently installed, starts the sequence itself if a train gets within 100yds or so of the home signal (very close to the crossing) with the barriers still up, presumably to mitigate against an identified SPAD risk. At other locations, we're free to run trains right up to the protecting signal, which is well under 50yds from the crossing in some cases.

Assuming that the signaller spends all their time sitting watching the crossings at Crawley. Oh but hang on a minute they are also responsible for the safety of the railway from Three Bridges exclusive and Dorking excliusive through Horsham to Arundel exclusive, roughly 40 route miles. Dealing with attachments at Horsham with the required phone calls at the same time that the slows are booked through Crawley on an signalling control panel that has to be the best part of 60ft long. To delay the lowering sequence in the manor you ask would delay trains at Horsham as you can't be in two places at the same time (not until you genetically engineer human arms to be about 20/30ft long), and there are a few people on this forum who travel on the Arun Valley who really love their trains delayed even more just for the sake of pleasing car users in Crawley.

Agreed that workload can be an important factor - but if the workload or panel layout is such that the barriers need to be lowered considerably earlier than they otherwise would, isn't there perhaps a need for the higher powers to look at it again? I understand that Network Rail has been served with at least one improvement notice (by HSE?), relating to a crossing north-west of Leeds in the one case that I'm aware of, because the closure times were excessive, partly related to the workload on the supervising workstation and the resultant desire to keep the barriers down for a second train rather than risk being distracted elsewhere on the patch and delaying that second train.

 

[martynbristow]

The issue at Motts Lane was indeed the excessively long period of warning of approaching trains, though in slightly different circumstances. It stemmed from improper use of the stopping/non-stopping controls for Down trains, provided exactly to ensure that the crossing wasn't activated too early for stopping trains - working in that manner certainly mitigated against the SPAD risk and consequences, but clearly introduced other significant risks into the operation that wouldn't perhaps be immediately apparent.



If it's considered that there's an unacceptable risk of a train passing the protecting signal at danger and running onto the open crossing, then surely mitigation would be provided either through the interlocking or by special instruction? At one of our boxes, with a crossing immediately beyond the station platform, we're not allowed to signal a train towards the crossing's protecting signal unless the barriers are down or the train is booked to call (so it's ok to run one into the platform with the barriers up, as long as it's booked to call). At another (with no station), "Stowmarket Control", recently installed, starts the sequence itself if a train gets within 100yds or so of the home signal (very close to the crossing) with the barriers still up, presumably to mitigate against an identified SPAD risk. At other locations, we're free to run trains right up to the protecting signal, which is well under 50yds from the crossing in some cases.


Agreed that workload can be an important factor - but if the workload or panel layout is such that the barriers need to be lowered considerably earlier than they otherwise would, isn't there perhaps a need for the higher powers to look at it again? I understand that Network Rail has been served with at least one improvement notice (by HSE?), relating to a crossing north-west of Leeds in the one case that I'm aware of, because the closure times were excessive, partly related to the workload on the supervising workstation and the resultant desire to keep the barriers down for a second train rather than risk being distracted elsewhere on the patch and delaying that second train.

I'm aware they are very different issues, but there are a number of worrying similarities. Someone took an unacceptable risk ignoring the crossing warning, potentially because they are kept to long. That occurs for a number of crossings.
The major issue of drivers disrespecting the highway code is the key factor but until you start removing people from the road for disrespecting it your not going to get anywhere.
Where I live you check both ways when crossing a one way street and a pedestrian crossing check as well as people will still run red lights and go the wring way.
How they passed a driving test is beyond me.