Nuneham Crossing

[Nicholas43]

Network Rail is well on with the process to close Nuneham (pedestrian) crossing, near Culham.
http://abcrailwayguide.uk/nuneham-public-level-crossing-oxfordshire#.W5FPwkZKjIU

Network Rail do admit that, in practice, there have not been "issues". My own opinion is that this crossing is safe, because the danger is obvious, and because it is only used by occasional reasonably fit and wary walkers.

I do think the (standard?) signage could be improved. The most prominent notice is the £1000 penalty for trespassing. "Stop look listen" is not actually, in my opinion, helpful, and "Beware of trains" is vague and superfluous. "Trains run in either direction on each line" is puzzling, and in normal circumstances untrue.

There's a good non-slip walkway, except for an odd sideways kink between the tracks.

In my (doubtless ignorant) opinion, the biggest hazard is the whistle boards. Someone could look both ways, start to cross, be surprised by a hoot, panic, and dangerously dither. In practice, if you look both ways, see nothing coming, and walk across normally and without dithering, you will get across safely. (But you may possibly alarm a driver, which I agree is not at all desirable.)

In the probably unlikely event that Network Rail don't get their wish, my own vote would be for improved signage saying something like

Cross one person at a time.
Step into the circle near the track.
Look right, look left, look right again.
If no train(s) are approaching, walk straight across.
If train(s) come into sight while you are crossing, keep walking.

Has anything like that ever been tried?

At the kink between the tracks, there's a lozenge-shaped section which is just gravelled. Possibly, it would be safe to stop there. (Though I wouldn't fancy it if two Freightliners were passing, which can happen here.) Are there any pedestrian level crossings which have a well-designed central refuge, or is opinion and experience against that?

 

[John Webb]

Is this the crossing in question? (click on photo to go to the larger original):
Stop, Look and Listen

© Copyright Des Blenkinsopp and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

If so, I am not surprised that NR wish to close it, as it crosses the line at an angle - recent investigations indicate this has been a significant factor in a number of accidents on such crossings in recent years.
It would not be safe to stop between the tracks - there is insufficient clearance between passing trains except by lying down - and even that has its hazards. Bearing in mind the railway seems to run in a shallow cutting here, might a simple footbridge be possible?

 

[philthetube]

The suggested signing sound sensible, stopping between tracks def not, even if safe at that location there are loads where it wouldn't be, and it is a bad idea to teach people unsafe actions.

 

[30907]

Bearing in mind the railway seems to run in a shallow cutting here, might a simple footbridge be possible?

There's an occupation bridge about 250m south, so hardly a big deal for walkers.

 

[Nicholas43]

Is this the crossing in question?

Yes. But it's now laid out at track level so that you cross at a right angle.

… might a simple footbridge be possible?

Yes. But still too costly, Network Rail say.

 

[swt_passenger]

“Trains run in either direction” is more likely since recent resignalling; that capability has been added to one of the lines between Didcot and Oxford at least.

 

[John Webb]

Thanks for the additional information - the picture above is 8 years old so not particularly up-to-date. I would agree that with the alternative (and safe) crossing so close that it would seem sensible to close this one.

I also agree with the OP that signage could be better. Recent incidents at 'Occupier Worked Level Crossings' have prompted a review of signage at these particularly for the casual delivery driver who, of course, cannot be informed by the 'Authorised User' how to correctly use the crossing as they are supposed to do.

 

[Nicholas43]

“Trains run in either direction” is more likely since recent resignalling; that capability has been added to one of the lines between Didcot and Oxford at least.

Sorry, I mis-remembered. The actual wording is "Trains run either way on each line". I don't think this stretch is (yet?) signalled for that.
https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/oxford#T_OXFD
Curiously, Nuneham Crossing would be (even) safer if there was normally only right-hand running between Didcot and Oxford. At the crossing, from both tracksides, your view is longer to your left, because of the (gentle) curves on this stretch.
The nearby bridge is not 100% safe. Walkers may encounter agricultural vehicles and vehicles taking bikes and bikers to Culham Motocross. And it's a dispiriting route, dominated by an oppressive view of the electricity substation that used to serve JET.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry, I mis-remembered. The actual wording is "Trains run either way on each line". I don't think this stretch is (yet?) signalled for that.
https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/oxford#T_OXFD
Curiously, Nuneham Crossing would be (even) safer if there was normally only right-hand running between Didcot and Oxford. At the crossing, from both tracksides, your view is longer to your left, because of the (gentle) curves on this stretch.
The nearby bridge is not 100% safe. Walkers may encounter agricultural vehicles and vehicles taking bikes and bikers to Culham Motocross. And it's a dispiriting route, dominated by an oppressive view of the electricity substation that used to serve JET.

It would possibly be too much information to try and explain which of two lines was more likely to see bidirectional running. My interpretation of the same diagram as you linked to is that it is the up line that is reversibly signalled, note however that there are nothing like the same number of wrong direction signals as the normal direction, it’s one long block. There are three down signals on the up between Radley and Kennington. (It’s also possible some more are missing from the diagram, I suppose.)

 

[RichA]

The minimum required sighting distance at Nuneham is 316 metres, this distance is a calculation based on maximum permitted line speed and the distance across the crossing (this distance includes a 2m decision point before crossing and 2m after to get clear). Unfortunately because of line curvature at Nuneham this sighting distance isn't achievable on the Upside looking towards Up direction trains (120m when last measured), and Downside towards Up direction trains (285m) and therefore non compliant. Because of this sighting deficiency a whistle board is provided for Up trains and positioned 432m from the crossing to give users warning of approach. Given the close proximity of the nearby accommodation bridge Oxfordshire CC and NR agree that this is a safer route for pedestrians to cross the railway, especially as the path over the crossing joins the same path that goes over the bridge. The consultation period for this closure proposal has recently ended and a couple of objections are being addressed.

The "Trains run either way on each line" signs are provided in response to the reversible signalling arrangements and have been provided at each level crossing between Nuneham and Tackley, whilst not strictly accurate it is far simpler to say both lines than trying to identify Up & Down lines to members of the public.

As mentioned above new signage is being developed with the addition of pictograms and the examples I have seen are very effective.

 

[Nicholas43]

The minimum required sighting distance at Nuneham is 316 metres ...

Thank you for this full explanation. Can you throw any light on the odd kink in the walkway at its midpoint, between the tracks? Do you think there is any substance in my suggestion that hearing a hoot could panic a walker who has started to cross, and cause him or her to dither, dangerously?

The consultation period for this closure proposal has recently ended and a couple of objections are being addressed.

I think that objections to the Order have to be made by 14 September 2018. However, staff at the County Council appear to have bungled putting the documents on the website. They are claimed to be visible at www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/public-site/consultation . But they aren't. And the list of Pending Public Path Order Applications hasn't been properly updated: see https://www2.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms...ronmentandplanning/countryside/PendingPPO.pdf

As mentioned above new signage is being developed with the addition of pictograms and the examples I have seen are very effective.

Are these examples visible anywhere, and will there be a public consultation about them?

 

[RichA]

The "kink" in the surface is due to the position of the sleepers on either line. You will see on the picture I have attached end restraints sticking out as a pair either side of the deck between the rails, these are secured to the concrete sleepers by bolts and holes drilled into the sleeper, these holes need to be as close to the centre of the sleeper as possible. As the sleepers on each line don't align exactly the decks are slightly skewed to accommodate the end restraints. The alternative is to move the sleepers but this is a real faff to carry out!

A train travelling at line speed will take around 9/10 seconds from sounding a warning to reaching the crossing, this should be adequate for the type of user identified as using the crossing (i.e walkers not encumbered with bikes, pushchairs etc), this of course relies on the user acting upon the warning and indeed relying on the driver sounding that warning. I personally have never come across an occasion when the sounding of a warning has caused anyone to dither, but that's not to say it hasn't or could happen.

I don't think the new signs have been published anywhere yet? but I'm sure stakeholders will be consulted (Councils, ramblers groups etc), i can post back if i get anymore information.

Thanks for pointing out the lack of information on the OCC website, i will flag it up to the team dealing with the process at NR.

 

[NHG66]

In over 5 years of driving over that crossing on an almost daily basis, I have never seen anyone using it. With the bridge being just a short distance to the South I can see no reason on safety grounds for the crossing to remain. The point about agricultural and motocross event vehicles is in my opinion moot as you would get more than 9 seconds warning of the vehicle approaching and its driver can take avoiding action, there's not much a train driver can do in 9 seconds at linespeed that is going to prevent a collision with a person on a crossing other than blow the horn, you certainly aren't going to get much speed off !!
As for the bi directional running, with the recent re signalling over the route, both lines are now signalled for bi directional use.

 

[XDM]

As a keen walker I was anxious about the closure of this crossing.
But post 13 from NHG66 has put my mind at rest very successfully.

From a railway point of view it is important to close it.
From a walker's viewpoint there is no loss if it is shut.

 

[Stewart2887]

I walked it yesterday. Completely pointless crossing, though I never usually support closing public rights of way.

 

[Nicholas43]

The "kink" in the surface is due to the position of the sleepers on either line. ...

Many thanks, again.

... As for the bi directional running, with the recent re signalling over the route, both lines are now signalled for bi directional use.

Probably a bit off-topic, but I'm puzzled. Have I read the map right, that Right Hand Running is signalled down in one block from 2283 before Appleford to 2331 (and others) past Radley; and up in one block from 2332 at Kennington Junction to 2310 past Culham? Therefore, not for routine use, but valuable eg to get round a broken-down train?

 

[181]

This crossing was mentioned in the regional Ramblers' Association newsletter earlier this year; I don't have the publication to hand, but I think it said something to the effect that the crossing had been reprieved because of the possibility of nearby housing development. I would have thought that that would make Network Rail even keener to close it; maybe (I'm speculating here) somebody argued successfully that it would be easier to get a developer to pay for a bridge if the public right of way still existed.

I used it (from east to west) back in about 2006. I remember being mildly disconcerted by the lack of visibility, but I listened carefully and crossed without incident. Back then it was unboarded and you just walked across the ballast, as can be seen in the picture in post #2.

I found this thread thismorning while looking for information about the current status of the crossing, as I hoped to use it (from west to east) today. In fact I found the crossing fenced off (not a complete surprise as I'd glimpsed the fencing from a passing train a few weeks ago), with a notice saying that it was temporarily closed due to work on the track. Cynics might suspect an attempt at closure by stealth, but the up line did indeed appear to have been relaid recently, and that side of the crossing was lacking its boards. Using the alternative route wasn't a problem.

While I'm reluctant to advocate closure of a public right of way, I think it's true that there's a reasonable case for closure of this one, if you put together the busy-ness of the railway, the restricted sightlines (not to mention the possibility of background noise from the motorcycle racing course) and the presence of a nearby bridge, accessible on both sides from the same path as the crossing; if it were to be closed it wouldn't be a great loss.

The nearby bridge is not 100% safe. Walkers may encounter agricultural vehicles and vehicles taking bikes and bikers to Culham Motocross.

The point about agricultural and motocross event vehicles is in my opinion moot as you would get more than 9 seconds warning of the vehicle approaching and its driver can take avoiding action

NHG66 is right about this particular crossing -- the track across the bridge seems no more unsafe than many other paths shared with vehicles, i.e. the risk is insignificant, and as has been mentioned the crossing is less than ideal. The general point about the safety of alternative routes is however important when considering crossing closures -- it seems fundamentally unjust to divert pedestrians (and in some cases cyclists) from a railway crossing, where in most cases they can reduce the risk to almost zero by exercising common sense, to a road, where however sensible they are they are at risk of death or injury from someone else's carelessness.