Offord Cluny Level Crossing on ECML - has it been replaced by a bridge ?

[Tomnick]

Which probably explains why one particular level crossing on the ECML is sometimes blocked by trains recessed in a loop for longer than the permitted 15 minutes. Noted one booked in the other Saturday for 45 minutes. No wonder signallers get frustrated by such plans, and abuse from the public - or worse still crossing misuse. :roll:

Probably the same planners who book trains to stand at the entrance to our goods lines (but timed from the previous location the same as a train running through, neglecting the restrictive approach control to get inside and clear), then pass over a mile of 15mph goods line in one minute, then instantaneously achieve 60mph again to pick up the same timings as a train passing through, or who think that my magic wand is good enough to run the second train in the goods line ahead of the first, or who delight in trying to arrange for the passenger to overtake a slow freight mid-section .

The crossing in question has a mention in the timetable planning rules, doesn't it?

 

[balne-wonderer]

Crossings on quiet roads are inevitably going to be easier to close because fewer people are affected. There is still a potential safety benefit as there can still be serious accidents on this sort of crossing. I agree the likelihood of an accident on a specific crossing is quite low but nobody can tell where the next one will be.

Busier roads will need bridges building, or a lot more effort to get everyone to agree to a diversion. So Network Rail is probably working on closing some of these too, but it will take a lot longer to get results

Yeah good points.

I wonder if the foot crossings at Tollerton and Alne over the ECML will soon bite the dust
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've just had a look at the crossing in question.

It did appear to have stop lights. Also, I found an interesting page here http://www.abcrailwayguide.co.uk/cardells-level-crossing-3870

This lists the risk factors and they include sun glare and low sighting time. I suspect the latter was a key element of the closure in addition to the tragedy. Accidents can happen on all crossings if people miss use them, we've all seen the footage of the young lad losing his shoe after hurdling a full barrier crossing but additional risk factors such as low sighting is a good reason to label a crossing 'dangerous' in my opinion

 

[trainplan1]

No interest in it as far as planning, if I can fit a train down there it is going on the graph regardless of the LC.

Yep, yet to see the rules say anything limiting "trains per hour" along any route due to LC's. If it fits, it fits.

Which probably explains why one particular level crossing on the ECML is sometimes blocked by trains recessed in a loop for longer than the permitted 15 minutes

If it's the one I'm thinking of I thought it was 10 minutes max...

 

[Bald Rick]

Yep, yet to see the rules say anything limiting "trains per hour" along any route due to LC's. If it fits, it fits.

There are some very clear rules in the Timetable Change Risk Assesment process. Any increase in service on a given stretch of line must have any affected Level Crossings assessed for the change in risk. If that assessment identifies a need to upgrade the crossing to cater for the changed risk, then the increased service cannot happen until the upgrade is done.

 

[D1009]

No interest in it as far as planning, if I can fit a train down there it is going on the graph regardless of the LC.

That's true as regards normal changes to the timetable, however if there is a significant increase in traffic on either road or rail over a level crossing, a risk assessment is required which may lead to a different type of crossing or total closure. I'm thinking particularly of the crossings between Peterborough and Leicester if this route becomes the freight artery being suggested currently.

 

[Tomnick]

That's true as regards normal changes to the timetable, however if there is a significant increase in traffic on either road or rail over a level crossing, a risk assessment is required which may lead to a different type of crossing or total closure. I'm thinking particularly of the crossings between Peterborough and Leicester if this route becomes the freight artery being suggested currently.

Any crossings, or crossing types, in particular on that route?

 

[jopsuk]

That's true as regards normal changes to the timetable, however if there is a significant increase in traffic on either road or rail over a level crossing, a risk assessment is required which may lead to a different type of crossing or total closure. I'm thinking particularly of the crossings between Peterborough and Leicester if this route becomes the freight artery being suggested currently.

Quite. Whilst it might not be a factor that the likes of The Planner have to consider in their job, it has to be a consideration at a strategic/political level

 

[The Planner]

I presume you are thinking about the TCRAG meetings? Isn't it Claypole loop where we always balls it up STP and sit across the LC with freights for too long?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Probably the same planners who book trains to stand at the entrance to our goods lines (but timed from the previous location the same as a train running through, neglecting the restrictive approach control to get inside and clear), then pass over a mile of 15mph goods line in one minute, then instantaneously achieve 60mph again to pick up the same timings as a train passing through, or who think that my magic wand is good enough to run the second train in the goods line ahead of the first, or who delight in trying to arrange for the passenger to overtake a slow freight mid-section .

Does that flag up as an auto TRUST point or is it manual entry? I'd be smashing us for QA delays via the TDA bods, usually it forces a change..... either that or get your LOM to send a "robust" email.

 

[trainplan1]

There are some very clear rules in the Timetable Change Risk Assesment process. Any increase in service on a given stretch of line must have any affected Level Crossings assessed for the change in risk. If that assessment identifies a need to upgrade the crossing to cater for the changed risk, then the increased service cannot happen until the upgrade is done.

In that case fair enough, timetable planning rules (certainly STP though) is a different story. Either that or someone has yet to tell us.

Isn't it Claypole loop where we always balls it up STP and sit across the LC with freights for too long?

I couldn't possibly comment...

 

[The Planner]

Good to see we still mess that up, been happening for more years than I can remember. No excuse for it.

 

[High Dyke]

Isn't it Claypole loop where we always balls it up STP and sit across the LC with freights for too long?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Does that flag up as an auto TRUST point or is it manual entry? I'd be smashing us for QA delays via the TDA bods, usually it forces a change..... either that or get your LOM to send a "robust" email.

In that case fair enough, timetable planning rules (certainly STP though) is a different story. Either that or someone has yet to tell us.



I couldn't possibly comment...

Neither could i ...

Yep, yet to see the rules say anything limiting "trains per hour" along any route due to LC's. If it fits, it fits.



If it's the one I'm thinking of I thought it was 10 minutes max...

Amended to 15 minutes. Unless of course the Train Planning rules haven't been changed?

Good to see we still mess that up, been happening for more years than I can remember. No excuse for it.

It's a bit of a bugbear of mine...and i let people know that. No wonder i'm sent on goodwill visits to meet the planners. Then again if the train consist isn't known prior to the schedule being created it can be too late before anyone notices.

 

[The Planner]

That is a problem, we don't plan directly on length, timing loads only allow for speed, traction and trailing weight.

 

[trainplan1]

That is a problem, we don't plan directly on length, timing loads only allow for speed, traction and trailing weight.

The engineering train planners do but not much else does like you say.

Amended to 15 minutes. Unless of course the Train Planning rules haven't been changed?

Just double checked and yes 15 it is.

 

[Tomnick]

Does that flag up as an auto TRUST point or is it manual entry? I'd be smashing us for QA delays via the TDA bods, usually it forces a change..... either that or get your LOM to send a "robust" email.

Do you mean for our TRUST reports? It's manual entry if so. In fairness, it's the hopeless minority who seem to occasionally come up with a rubbish schedule - most of the time it works, or we find a way to make it work, or something else goes wrong at the same time...so not too many Q-codes for you lot .