Safety at User Worked Crossings

[saismee]

Split from: High-speed train bound for London ‘hits van on level crossing’ in village as vehicle bursts into flames (July 13)
I thought that the original thread was getting too off-topic and speculative, so I decided to split and post here instead.

This is the photo they are reporting on. Not 100% sure it’s the right crossing, but if it is, it’s got a red/green colour light system in place.

Picture shows a UWC (User Worked Crossing) with a large variety of signs and a STOP/Clear red and green indicator light. The signs mounted to the left (top to bottom) are: red triangle with a level crossing pictogram, a red octagonal STOP sign, a white panel with various animal/large vehicle pictograms (?) followed by a lot of text and a yellow handset image, another white panel with smaller vehicle pictograms and text, a third white panel with a pedestrian and cyclist pictogram and more text, then fourth and final panel with text in a yellow box with a trailer pictogram. The gate has more signs which are (left to right): CCTV sign, Yellow sign with a handset pictogram and a left arrow, a blue "PERMITTED ACCESS ONLY" sign, a red railway trespass warning sign, a large red circle, and a yellow high voltage triangle that reads "Danger Do not touch the live rail".

Does anyone else think that the warning light could actually increase the risk of crossing misuse? I can absolutely see a driver see a green clear light and disregard all of the other signs (it's a lot of text), open the first gate and then park on the crossing to open the second one. These types of lights seem to be slapped onto existing "unsafe" crossings to improve their risk assessment.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Part of the problem is that many of the general public do not realise that trains are not driven on sight, and cannot stop short of an obstruction that comes into view.

Maybe, to counter the problem of people not realising both sets of gates shoul;d be opemned before crossing, the geates should be set back so that there is a space into which the vehicle can be driven whlst the first gate is closed behind it, and in which it can wait whilst the second gate is opened in front of it?

And/or very clear signage to indicate that on no account should you stop on the tracks. Like this

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.

www.google.com

(Full barrier level crossing at North Sheen - sign saying "under no circumstances should any vehicle stop on the level crossing"

 

[saismee]

Maybe, to counter the problem of people not realising both sets of gates shoul;d be opemned before crossing, the geates should be set back so that there is a space into which the vehicle can be driven whlst the first gate is closed behind it, and in which it can wait whilst the second gate is opened in front of it?

I don't think this is possible for a lot of these crossings due to the amount of space required, and I don't think the land owners (for gates on private roads) would be very happy with this. You also have to consider that large vehicles and trailers will still not fit and it increases the risk that someone will park one of these on the line.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Genuine question:
Do crossings like this have ‘Yellow Box’ markings on the actual deck? (I realise that that can’t apply on an unsealed gravel road surface on the approach.) At least delivery drivers will be well familiar with Yellow Box markings on general roads and may well already have had a ticket or two for ignoring them.

 

[The exile]

Genuine question:
Do crossings like this have ‘Yellow Box’ markings on the actual deck? (I realise that that can’t apply on an unsealed gravel road surface on the approach.) At least delivery drivers will be well familiar with Yellow Box markings on general roads and may well already have had a ticket or two for ignoring them.

I suspect you’ve neatly summarised the problem with that suggestion in your last clause.

 

[eastdyke]

Split from: High-speed train bound for London ‘hits van on level crossing’ in village as vehicle bursts into flames (July 13)
I thought that the original thread was getting too off-topic and speculative, so I decided to split and post here instead.


Picture shows a UWC (User Worked Crossing) with a large variety of signs and a STOP/Clear red and green indicator light. The signs mounted to the left (top to bottom) are: red triangle with a level crossing pictogram, a red octagonal STOP sign, a white panel with various animal/large vehicle pictograms (?) followed by a lot of text and a yellow handset image, another white panel with smaller vehicle pictograms and text, a third white panel with a pedestrian and cyclist pictogram and more text, then fourth and final panel with text in a yellow box with a trailer pictogram. The gate has more signs which are (left to right): CCTV sign, Yellow sign with a handset pictogram and a left arrow, a blue "PERMITTED ACCESS ONLY" sign, a red railway trespass warning sign, a large red circle, and a yellow high voltage triangle that reads "Danger Do not touch the live rail".

Does anyone else think that the warning light could actually increase the risk of crossing misuse? I can absolutely see a driver see a green clear light and disregard all of the other signs (it's a lot of text), open the first gate and then park on the crossing to open the second one. These types of lights seem to be slapped onto existing "unsafe" crossings to improve their risk assessment.

To save re-covering ground you could start with the RAIB report [May 2024]

Summary of learning - 1. Design and operation of user worked level crossings - v5. May 2024

www.gov.uk

There are many existing investigations etc from which the report has drawn findings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

Genuine question:
Do crossings like this have ‘Yellow Box’ markings on the actual deck? (I realise that that can’t apply on an unsealed gravel road surface on the approach.) At least delivery drivers will be well familiar with Yellow Box markings on general roads and may well already have had a ticket or two for ignoring them.

Your gonna need a lot of yellow paint!

Around 2100 UWC's, no requirement and not required if crossings are correctly installed and used.

We probably need a solution in technology for the 21st century but I would hate that to invlolve an app. that could be used as a challenge for those of a certain mind. eg 'How many of these UWC'c can we 'do' in a day?'

 

[styles]

Maybe, to counter the problem of people not realising both sets of gates shoul;d be opemned before crossing, the geates should be set back so that there is a space into which the vehicle can be driven whlst the first gate is closed behind it, and in which it can wait whilst the second gate is opened in front of it?

On the contrary, one of the problems with the crossing which sparked this post was that there is actually a gap between one of the gates and the tracks. We don't know yet, but it's one possible explanation for what happened.

All this would do in my view is encourage people to leave their vehicles lineside of a crossing gate unattended, and increase the amount of time spent on the crossing.

I would personally move the gate on the crossing in question closer to the lines.

Also, if you encounter a problem with the gate on the far side, it's better to have not brought your vehicle lineside of the near gate; whereas if the user is encouraged to open both gates before bringing a vehicle over, if the far gate won't open, their vehicle is in a proper position of safety.

The kind of driver to leave their vehicle on or next to the tracks on a crossing where the only sensible way to cross is to open both sets of gates is likely the same kind of driver to leave their vehicle overhanging a sort of safety area. Not to mention the number of modern SUV owners and van delivery drivers in rentals who simply don't know the size of their vehicle.

 

[Spartacus]

To save re-covering ground you could start with the RAIB report [May 2024]

Summary of learning - 1. Design and operation of user worked level crossings - v5. May 2024

www.gov.uk

There are many existing investigations etc from which the report has drawn findings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==


Your gonna need a lot of yellow paint!

Around 2100 UWC's, no requirement and not required if crossings are correctly installed and used.

We probably need a solution in technology for the 21st century but I would hate that to invlolve an app. that could be used as a challenge for those of a certain mind. eg 'How many of these UWC'c can we 'do' in a day?'

In the grand scheme of things it's really not a lot of paint at all, how many box junctions are there in the UK with them, I think adding them to UWCs is one of the simpler and most sensible ideas I've heard. So often we find incidents of this type are down to someone who'd stopped short of, or past, the rails thinking they're clear when they're not. That might also help reduce the number of drivers who only open one gate at once, increasing risks. If normal crossings are used correctly yellow box markings shouldn't be needed, but they have them all the same.

Too often people don't make the necessary phone call for whatever excuse they have, and when they go to a solitary farm or house they can be locked, the user given a key, but it's not always they case; there's a fishing lake & shop the other side here for instance. Also long gone are they days when the average user was a local or the postman, now it's often Mr or Mrs driver for Amazon, Asda, Iceland, Ocado etc using their sat nav, and I think treating UWCs a bit more like a regular crossing is no bad thing.

 

[The exile]

Time for some apportionment of responsibility under the H&S at work act, methinks. A delivery driver is either working for a company subcontracted to do the work, directly employed by Amazon or is themselves directly subcontracting as a freelancer. In the first two examples there is a company which could be expected to have risk assessed the route and ensured that the driver is trained on what to do at that specific hazard. In the third instance, the same should apply - if you’re delivering a parcel directly on Amazon’s instructions, what you do remains Amazon’s legal responsibility. (Substitute company name as appropriate)
No doubt thousands will cry “but it will ruin the business model” to which my reply is “not before time”.

 

[eastdyke]

In the grand scheme of things it's really not a lot of paint at all, how many box junctions are there in the UK with them, I think adding them to UWCs is one of the simpler and most sensible ideas I've heard. So often we find incidents of this type are down to someone who'd stopped short of, or past, the rails thinking they're clear when they're not. That might also help reduce the number of drivers who only open one gate at once, increasing risks. If normal crossings are used correctly yellow box markings shouldn't be needed, but they have them all the same.

Too often people don't make the necessary phone call for whatever excuse they have, and when they go to a solitary farm or house they can be locked, the user given a key, but it's not always they case; there's a fishing lake & shop the other side here for instance. Also long gone are they days when the average user was a local or the postman, now it's often Mr or Mrs driver for Amazon, Asda, Iceland, Ocado etc using their sat nav, and I think treating UWCs a bit more like a regular crossing is no bad thing.

I don't think that yellow boxes are reasonably practical for private crossings. Would require application/maintenance of 'paint' to large areas of unbound surfaces 'between the gates'.

No phone call needed for a car or small van where crossing has MSL's [which Bax has]. And the crossing had the latest incarnation of signage which even as a non-driver [ie not a professional driver] is clear enough to me.
The fishing lake and shop in this instance is signed on both sides of the access via the underpass less than 300m along the road.

As above, a solution in technology should be used to improve what we do.

 

[Spartacus]

I don't think that yellow boxes are reasonably practical for private crossings. Would require application/maintenance of 'paint' to large areas of unbound surfaces 'between the gates'.

No phone call needed for a car or small van where crossing has MSL's [which Bax has]. And the crossing had the latest incarnation of signage which even as a non-driver [ie not a professional driver] is clear enough to me.
The fishing lake and shop in this instance is signed on both sides of the access via the underpass less than 300m along the road.

As above, a solution in technology should be used to improve what we do.

I don't really know what a 'solution in technology' might look like for a UWC crossing though?

My Thinking behind yellow boxes would be that they needn't extend any further than necessary for clearances + safety margin. Many crossing therefore wouldn't need any surface modification beyond painting, and those that did wouldn't need a lot. I've long thought yellow boxes should be standard on level crossings, if nothing else to give drivers some familiar reference point on something they might be familiar with.

 

[eastdyke]

I don't really know what a 'solution in technology' might look like for a UWC crossing though?

My Thinking behind yellow boxes would be that they needn't extend any further than necessary for clearances + safety margin. Many crossing therefore wouldn't need any surface modification beyond painting, and those that did wouldn't need a lot. I've long thought yellow boxes should be standard on level crossings, if nothing else to give drivers some familiar reference point on something they might be familiar with.

I don't know what that solution might look like but there will be one!

With the yellow boxes, if they don't extend from gate to gate then you might encourage behaviour that we seek to avoid - that of parking on the unboxed area and opening each gate 'one-at-a-time'. ie use of the familiar reference point for the wrong purpose.

Going forward NR are committed to upgrading UWC signage to the latest 2023 standard by end 2029 [CP7]. [unless already fitted with signs to the 1996 standard at the time of the 2023 Regulations [18th November] in which case they can remain unless the signs are modified].

 

[Annetts key]

Split from: High-speed train bound for London ‘hits van on level crossing’ in village as vehicle bursts into flames (July 13)
I thought that the original thread was getting too off-topic and speculative, so I decided to split and post here instead.


Picture shows a UWC (User Worked Crossing) with a large variety of signs and a STOP/Clear red and green indicator light. The signs mounted to the left (top to bottom) are: red triangle with a level crossing pictogram, a red octagonal STOP sign, a white panel with various animal/large vehicle pictograms (?) followed by a lot of text and a yellow handset image, another white panel with smaller vehicle pictograms and text, a third white panel with a pedestrian and cyclist pictogram and more text, then fourth and final panel with text in a yellow box with a trailer pictogram. The gate has more signs which are (left to right): CCTV sign, Yellow sign with a handset pictogram and a left arrow, a blue "PERMITTED ACCESS ONLY" sign, a red railway trespass warning sign, a large red circle, and a yellow high voltage triangle that reads "Danger Do not touch the live rail".

Does anyone else think that the warning light could actually increase the risk of crossing misuse? I can absolutely see a driver see a green clear light and disregard all of the other signs (it's a lot of text), open the first gate and then park on the crossing to open the second one. These types of lights seem to be slapped onto existing "unsafe" crossings to improve their risk assessment.

MSL (Miniature Stop Light ) systems (the green/red light units) also have two audible warning sounders. So if you have normal hearing, as soon as the lights go red, you cannot fail to hear both sounders start up as well.

The MSL systems ARE the technology that is intended to make user worked crossings safer...

Generally, from my limited experience of watching them, the public does appear to be better behaved at MSL crossings compared to the telephone only crossings.

No amount of extra safety features short of converting it to a MCB type with full width lifting barriers controlled by the railway will prevent deliberate mis-use. This is not practical and would cost an enormous amount of money.

 

[styles]

No amount of extra safety features short of converting it to a MCB type with full width lifting barriers controlled by the railway will prevent deliberate mis-use. This is not practical and would cost an enormous amount of money.

Even MCB crossings don't eliminate deliberate misuse.

Somebody who wants across a crossing is going to get across one. We can add deterrents but even if we stood staff members at each side of a crossing, there'd still be the odd one who jumps over and makes a run for it.

 

[MoominAndChips]

Picture shows a UWC (User Worked Crossing) with a large variety of signs and a STOP/Clear red and green indicator light. The signs mounted to the left (top to bottom) are: red triangle with a level crossing pictogram, a red octagonal STOP sign, a white panel with various animal/large vehicle pictograms (?) followed by a lot of text and a yellow handset image, another white panel with smaller vehicle pictograms and text, a third white panel with a pedestrian and cyclist pictogram and more text, then fourth and final panel with text in a yellow box with a trailer pictogram. The gate has more signs which are (left to right): CCTV sign, Yellow sign with a handset pictogram and a left arrow, a blue "PERMITTED ACCESS ONLY" sign, a red railway trespass warning sign, a large red circle, and a yellow high voltage triangle that reads "Danger Do not touch the live rail".

British health and safety disease run rampant. Boxes must be ticked, and if the overall effect is a confusing and off-putting mess that obscures the important information, so be it.

Even the solar panel and its pole, etc., add to the visual clutter.

I assume that every individual sign in this mess is mandated by some regulation or other, and nobody has the authority to step back, look at the whole thing, and do something about it.

Full barrier level crossing at North Sheen - sign saying "under no circumstances should any vehicle stop on the level crossing"

Written by Victorian lawyers, for Victorian lawyers. What's wrong with "DANGER Do not stop on the crossing"?

I think this guy had the right idea:



Billups Neon Crossing Signal - Wikipedia