Time to Remove Level Crossings?

[MidnightFlyer]

http://rail-news.com/2010/09/03/is-it-time-to-cross-out-level-crossings-for-good/

Get the highways agency to pay it if they are so desperate, otherwise this is just idiotic.

 

[CosherB]

Absolutely. I've no objection to them being removed, as long as it comes out of the road budget not the rail budget.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

TBH, except Lincoln etc, they don't really need to be removed, just the idiots that abuse them mean it has to be thought about.

 

[imagination]

Plus some level crossings would be extremely difficult if not impossible to remove.

Any volunteers for getting rid of the level crossing at Wokingham?

 

[mrcheek]

No need to remove them. Just dramatically increase the punishment for anybody who fails to follow correct procedure when crossing. A few jail sentences for careless drivers, plus maybe some on the spot fines for careless pedestrians, and the problem will soon be lessened.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

They should electrify barriers - no-one would dare jump them then. Lincoln, Wokingham, Bamber Bridge, Cheshunt etc, almost all will be impossible, involve demolishing several buildings, reroute miles of roads, and cost well over £10m each at a guess.

 

[NSEFAN]

Not this again.

Supposedly, road users are responsible for the control of their vehicle. Why should the railways have to bend over backwards to help out those who will not take due care when in control of what is a potentially leathal weapon?

As for pedestrians, they arguably have more time to think about the risks when using a crossing. If they still decide to disregard the rules, then they've brought the unpleasant outcome upon themselves.

The article itself states that most crossing accidents are the fault of the user, not the railways. It doesn't seem at all right that the railways should then have to fork out for a problem which is not of their own making. Perhaps we should stick £1 million fines on all those who abuse crossings? That would raise funds for new bridges soon enough!

 

[YorkshireBear]

end of day anyone who decides to run a red light is stupid and if they get hit, well it's there own stupid fault especially pedestrians....

If any is done then road not rail buget should take the cut cos its road users taht are unsafe not train drivers or equipment

 

[scotsman]

My dream is to see those who jump the lights charged with dangerous/reckless driving. And those who kill anyone because of their misuse of crossings to be charged with death by dangerous driving (car passengers killed) or manslaughter (rail passengers/staff)

 

[CarterUSM]

No, it is not time to remove level crossings. Why is everyone in such a rush nowadays anyway? Give way to the train, it is bigger than you!

 

[Failed Unit]

TBH, except Lincoln etc, they don't really need to be removed, just the idiots that abuse them mean it has to be thought about.

Lincoln would be more than simple than you think, close it pedestrianise the highstreet and provide a bridge that crosses the railway and Wigford way at the same time. Brayford wharf has enough space either side for a bridge. The could then extend Tentacroft street to meet Pelham bridge.

It always amuses me when people moan about the high street and the amount of time it is shut. If peoples car journeys are impacted that much by the closure why don't they use one of the bridges? Answer it would take them longer crossing closed or not!

 

[swt_passenger]

Lincoln would be more than simple than you think, close it pedestrianise the highstreet and provide a bridge that crosses the railway and Wigford way at the same time.

Seems that's basically what they did in Poole, but the LC still operates for the pedestrians, surprisingly. You've basically got a full barriered crossing across a two lane wide pedestrian route.

With the original footbridge for pedestrians who don't want to wait for a train to pass.

Lack of cars isn't the answer to all problems though...

People_still_risking_life_at_Poole_level_crossing/

 

[mumrar]

Plus some level crossings would be extremely difficult if not impossible to remove.

Any volunteers for getting rid of the level crossing at Wokingham?

No level crossing would be impossible to remove, but some would be extremely difficult to replace with a bridge or underpass is I guess what you're getting at.

If this is what they want, get the road budgets to pay it, out of all the fuel duty and road fund licence they steal that doesn't get put back in to road projects LOL

 

[b0b]

I'm all about the idea of closing level crossings .... to road users, if they cannot be responsible enough to use them correctly. It isn't even that difficult!

 

[Vulcan]

I think in general level crossings are avoided on new lines when possible, you'll notice there arn't any level crossings on HS1. But for the rest of the network, in a lot of cases a bridge is just too expensive or physically there isn't space for one.

 

[ainsworth74]

you'll notice there arn't any level crossings on HS1

Where the line speed is at or above 125mph you aren't allowed to have any form of level crossing.

 

[Vulcan]

Where the line speed is above 125mph you aren't allowed to have any form of level crossing.

Not sure this is correct. There are a lot of level crossings on the ECML up near the border and Hest Bank on the WCML, to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
...no, wait a minute.

I should really read things properly before I post!

 

[Lampshade]

They should electrify barriers - no-one would dare jump them then. Lincoln, Wokingham, Bamber Bridge, Cheshunt etc, almost all will be impossible, involve demolishing several buildings, reroute miles of roads, and cost well over £10m each at a guess.

One that I know would be impossible is Furness Vale, it's on the middle of an incline on a very narrow road.

 

[LE Greys]

I think in general level crossings are avoided on new lines when possible, you'll notice there arn't any level crossings on HS1. But for the rest of the network, in a lot of cases a bridge is just too expensive or physically there isn't space for one.

There weren't any level crossings on the Great Central London Extension either, and that opened in 1899. Loads of accommodation bridges, cattle creeps and all sorts of things, but not even a foot crossing and most stations had island platforms with access from above or below.

Oh yes, and they were supposed to close the ones at Tempsford, Helpston, Tallington and soforth before the famous 140 upgrade that never happened.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Get the highways agency to pay it if they are so desperate, otherwise this is just idiotic.

The issue with that is that the party that made the crossing (be it level or bridge) necessary has to pay for it and maintain it. If the road was there first, the railway has to pay for it, and vice-versa. One could say that if the Highways Agency require new bridges, they are separate crossings and they have to pay for them, but they might say that it is an upgrade to the existing crossing and Network Rail has to pay for them. This could go on for ages, probably until the House of Lords rules on it.

 

[ainsworth74]

I should really read things properly before I post!

Something I'm often guilty of myself!

 

[merlodlliw]

We have a level crossing that leads(immediate) to the giant Wrexham Maelor base hospital, it is attached to a signal box, with thousands of vehicle movements a day through this crossing, I dont recall there ever being a problem, suppose its because of the dense movement of traffic, as the railway was here first? presume it was a track previous, WRX GEN is less than qtr mile away, im not sure it could be be put in the ground or bridged. Lucky the busiest rail time is between is just after 8,00 p.m. Not sure who maintains the roadway through it,we dont have the Highways Agency in Wales this is devolved to the local Councils.

Of course had this been today, a bridge would have been built,whereas a few yards away the WRX/BIDSTON line enjoys a road bridge with only an hourly service to WRX Central.

I would agree smaller villages with little traffic movements seem to have more problems with those on foot & vehicles.

 

[Greenback]

It's not feasible to close all level crossings. Even if the money came out of the road budget, it's still taxpayers money and we simply don't have enough!

There are many level crossings which work perfectly and have had very few, if any accidents for decades. What we need to do is to look at why this is the case, and look at options for those crossings with the highest incidents of misuse, including closure.

Ther emight also be a case for more local supervision of some crossings, rather than the CCTV coverage from miles away that has become common in recent times.

 

[imagination]

No level crossing would be impossible to remove, but some would be extremely difficult to replace with a bridge or underpass is I guess what you're getting at.

If this is what they want, get the road budgets to pay it, out of all the fuel duty and road fund licence they steal that doesn't get put back in to road projects LOL

Wokingham level crossing:
- Right next to Wokingham station (the station footbridge also serves as a pedestrian bridge to avoid the level crossing)
- The railway has a bridge under a road a short distance away on one side and a junction followed by two bridges over a road a short distance away on the other side
- On the road there are road junctions within two yards of the barriers as well as access to the station/car park on one side.
- The area is heavily built up
- It is a main road - the only one directly connecting two halves of the town, to which the only viable alternative would be a long diversion via a road that is already constant queueing at all times of day and very busy throughout the night as well.
- The entire surrounding area is built up

In order to remove the level crossing you would have three choices:
- Close the road - effectively splitting Wokingham into 2 towns, one of which would have almost no facilities, including no easy access to the railway station
or
- Demolish the majority of Wokingham town centre and a large number of houses and completely rebuild the town.
or
- Close the railway, which consists of 2 well used railway lines (Reading - Gatwick and Reading - Waterloo)

So no, it isn't impossible, but it may as well be.

 

[tbtc]

It's not feasible to close all level crossings. Even if the money came out of the road budget, it's still taxpayers money and we simply don't have enough!

There are many level crossings which work perfectly and have had very few, if any accidents for decades. What we need to do is to look at why this is the case, and look at options for those crossings with the highest incidents of misuse, including closure.

Ther emight also be a case for more local supervision of some crossings, rather than the CCTV coverage from miles away that has become common in recent times.

As usual, you've hit the nail on the head there.

There are much bigger issues on the railways and much bigger issues on the roads too.

You might as well start a thread titled "Time To Remove Zebra Crossings" or "Time To Remove Flat Junctions"...

 

[trentside]

Lincoln would be more than simple than you think, close it pedestrianise the highstreet and provide a bridge that crosses the railway and Wigford way at the same time. Brayford wharf has enough space either side for a bridge. The could then extend Tentacroft street to meet Pelham bridge.

It always amuses me when people moan about the high street and the amount of time it is shut. If peoples car journeys are impacted that much by the closure why don't they use one of the bridges? Answer it would take them longer crossing closed or not!

Regarding this, I believe the public consultation of the Lincoln East-West link road, from Pelham Bridge to St Mark Street / High Street junction (via Tentercroft Street) is now closed - and funding being sought. This is now the major obstacle. It requires the compulsory purchase of a number of buildings on Tentercroft Street and new infrastructure to cross the Sincil Drain. The intention is also to install new bus priority schemes towards the City Centre - and to pedestrianise the High Street. I believe the crossing would be retained for pedestrians, but there would be a new, wider pedestrian crossing over Wigford Way / St Mary's Street junction.

Completely agree with Failed Unit about people moaning about the crossing - the local press being the worst for sensationalising. A recent article mentioned the fabled 45 minute figure, but in reality - I believe the article quoted something like 15 minutes out of each hour, but claimed that there was potential for more freight to be routed via Lincoln.

 

[blacknight]

Lincoln had a perfectly good high level avoiding line tha got the axe in the 1980's simple bad planning another case of short term gain resulting in long term pain.
Problem is not with level crossings which worked well in both 19 & 20 centuries its with the 21 century gene pool that cannot understand they must wait for a few minutes for a train to pass, those people have a simple lesson to learn & choice to make either comply or die.

 

[Kneedown]

Where the line speed is at or above 125mph you aren't allowed to have any form of level crossing.

As Vulcan pointed out there are plenty of LC's on the ECML where the line speed is 125mph.
I think what you are getting at AHB level crossings maybe?

 

[ainsworth74]

I think what you are getting at AHB level crossings maybe?

I'm getting my information from the RSSB report into the Ufton accident. Contained with in is a reproduction of a flow chart to determine what type of level crossing is appropriate in various different situations this is taken from Network Rail Code of Practice RT/E/C/11600 - Signalling & Operations Telecommunications - Page X18. The flow I'm following says START - Permitted Speed >200km/h -YES- Level Crossing Not Permitted.

Granted this is now several years out of date, so if someone with more recent information could comment, I would appreciate it

 

[45669]

I don't remember all these accidents when level crossings had big and heavy white gates operated from an adjoining signal box by a signalman turning a great big wheel...

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think in general level crossings are avoided on new lines when possible, you'll notice there arn't any level crossings on HS1. But for the rest of the network, in a lot of cases a bridge is just too expensive or physically there isn't space for one.

Thats a trend that goes back to the last lines built in the 1900s. The Badminton line doesnt have a level crossing on it, and I dont think the Cheltenham-Birmingham GWR line had many either. I assume it was done for different reasons than today though, I dont imagine they had great trouble in those days of individuals running red oil lamps in their horse and cart. Maybe they finally realised that a bridge doesnt require a crossing keeper, so saved money in the long run.

Im curious, have all the half gates on level crossings been replaced? That always struck me as an open invitation for some munter to drive round them.