Does NR really understand safety issues at Level crossings?
Discussion
sparks85 said:
I do recognise however there is a need to improve some crossings to minimise the time people are waiting - or at least provide better visibility of how long until they will be raised. But this all comes back to cost and resources.
I am fully aware of the resources issue but you touch upon an important point, which is that either level crossing closures need to be reduced/ minimised in certain locations or the general public need to be given more information.The line often taken, both on here and by NR that: "the gates are closed for a reason therefore behave just the way we tell you" isn't working, any more than creating a new speed limit on a piece of road is going to guarantee automatic compliance. Not only is it not working, it will never work, and a new initiative is needed.
Why don't people take short cuts and walk across the M25 at 11 o'clock in the morning? Because they can see clearly that the probability of them surviving is minimal, that's why. How many people might take a short cut across the M25 at 2.30am? I don't know but I would suggest that statistically more people would chance their arm then than in the middle of the morning.
There are parts of the world where you will see a timer on a pedestrian crossing, to tell you either how long you have left to cross or how long it will be before the lights change in your favour. Introducing displays like that at level crossing might help people identify the risks more clearly. But that could be a double-edged sword: signs saying "the barriers will be closed for the next 265 seconds" may well encourage non-compliance with the closure, but it would also highlight areas where NR's shortcomings (ie keeping the gates closed for too long) would become all-too-public knowledge.
It might keep both the non-travelling public and NR on their toes, though
In a similar theme to RS1952 above ^^^
You only have to look at that opening video to realise that the presumably local drivers know that when those barriers come down it's going to take a lot longer than 2 minutes for the train to come through.
This leads to normal human behaviour. One car makes a U turn and goes off to find another way through. Another finds a zigzag route through the barriers
If it was well known that the barriers would come down, the train comes through, the barriers go up, you'd have none of that.
Rather than fix the timing, the money is going on cameras to monitor what's already known happens.
Wheres the benefit in having a nice picture of a train driving through a car
PugwasHDJ80 said:
really struggle with the idea that motorist and pedestrians are unable to look at a set of traffic lights and think "oh I'm being told that there is 100s of tonnes of metal coming my way at 100mph, I better get out of the way".
Its very very difficult to have sympathy for people who jump lights or contravene barriers.
National Rail shouldn't spend any more money pandering to errant stupidity.
Its about making sure they spend money on the right thing. If it's spent the wrong way it could make matters worse rather than betterIts very very difficult to have sympathy for people who jump lights or contravene barriers.
National Rail shouldn't spend any more money pandering to errant stupidity.
You only have to look at that opening video to realise that the presumably local drivers know that when those barriers come down it's going to take a lot longer than 2 minutes for the train to come through.
This leads to normal human behaviour. One car makes a U turn and goes off to find another way through. Another finds a zigzag route through the barriers
If it was well known that the barriers would come down, the train comes through, the barriers go up, you'd have none of that.
Rather than fix the timing, the money is going on cameras to monitor what's already known happens.
Wheres the benefit in having a nice picture of a train driving through a car
Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 23 April 23:46
saaby93 said:
In a similar theme to RS1952 above ^^^
You only have to look at that opening video to realise that the presumably local drivers know that when those barriers come down it's going to take a lot longer than 2 minutes for the train to come through.
This leads to normal human behaviour. One car makes a U turn and goes off to find another way through. Another finds a zigzag route through the barriers
If it was well known that the barriers would come down, the train comes through, the barriers go up, you'd have none of that.
Rather than fix the timing, the money is going on cameras to monitor what's already known happens.
Wheres the benefit in having a nice picture of a train driving through a car
other than to snigger and say 'gotcha'
Because it is easier and cheaper - finite budget remember - to put cameras up at hot spots in the interim before the crossings are upgraded.PugwasHDJ80 said:
really struggle with the idea that motorist and pedestrians are unable to look at a set of traffic lights and think "oh I'm being told that there is 100s of tonnes of metal coming my way at 100mph, I better get out of the way".
Its very very difficult to have sympathy for people who jump lights or contravene barriers.
National Rail shouldn't spend any more money pandering to errant stupidity.
Its about making sure they spend money on the right thing. If it's spent the wrong way it could make matters worse rather than betterIts very very difficult to have sympathy for people who jump lights or contravene barriers.
National Rail shouldn't spend any more money pandering to errant stupidity.
You only have to look at that opening video to realise that the presumably local drivers know that when those barriers come down it's going to take a lot longer than 2 minutes for the train to come through.
This leads to normal human behaviour. One car makes a U turn and goes off to find another way through. Another finds a zigzag route through the barriers
If it was well known that the barriers would come down, the train comes through, the barriers go up, you'd have none of that.
Rather than fix the timing, the money is going on cameras to monitor what's already known happens.
Wheres the benefit in having a nice picture of a train driving through a car
other than to snigger and say 'gotcha'
Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 22 April 15:58
The whole snigger and gotcha comment is a bit ridiculous really isn't it. If you think that's what NR and BTP are trying to achieve then you are seriously deluded.
As with anything there is education and enforcement. If people ignore signs, lights and barriers to put their and others lives at risk, should they not be caught and punished?
With regards to the count down timers, great idea if you are a pedestrian waiting to cross a road - max wait time of say, 20 secs. Humans will wait that long for the guarantee of safety. But as you say, if it said 7 minutes, it is more likely to encourage people to jump the barriers than prevent them. NR are not going to install count down timers just to highlight the long wait times - they are well aware of them.
The frequency of closures (i.e barriers down) can't be effectively reduced - they are interlocked to one extent or another with the signalling system and the network has to run trains as per the timetable. The only way to reduce the frequency of closures would be to reduce the frequency of trains.
Reducing the period of each closure - the crossing closure time for automated/interlocked systems is calculated based upon line speed, distance from the signal etc to leave a safe buffer of time as per the NR Standards. Those crossing under local control - i.e with the signaller in the box - have some flexibility and you will find they will open them when it is safe to do so, even to let a few cars through.
There's no silver bullet, the assessments and upgrades will take many years and you may not see changes within the next decade at your local crossing - but that doesnt mean NR aren't doing anything for the 3000(?) LX's across the network.
sparks85 said:
But as you say, if it said 7 minutes, it is more likely to encourage people to jump the barriers than prevent them. NR are not going to install count down timers just to highlight the long wait times - they are well aware of them.
Precisely my point. If NR were forced to advertise the fact that a barrier could be down for 7 minutes then questions would be asked in the house!!sparks85 said:
Because it is easier and cheaper - finite budget remember - to put cameras up at hot spots in the interim before the crossings are upgraded.
The whole snigger and gotcha comment is a bit ridiculous really isn't it. If you think that's what NR and BTP are trying to achieve then you are seriously deluded.
As with anything there is education and enforcement. If people ignore signs, lights and barriers to put their and others lives at risk, should they not be caught and punished?
Sorry about that. It was probably a bit OTT but the sentiment was there.The whole snigger and gotcha comment is a bit ridiculous really isn't it. If you think that's what NR and BTP are trying to achieve then you are seriously deluded.
As with anything there is education and enforcement. If people ignore signs, lights and barriers to put their and others lives at risk, should they not be caught and punished?
Making a procedure such that people are almost certain to use the unsafe method of using it, then photographing them and fining them? No I dont think they should be caught and punished for that as it's almost a honey trap and isn't addressing the real issue. Enough of that seems to happen on the roads. Best keep the money and use it elsewhere.
Once I'd say that approach wouldn't happen in aircraft safety. The idea would be to tackle what was leading to the unsafe behaviour rather than trying to deal with the consequences. Someone tell me it's still the case.
However I like the 7 minute idea or however long it is
There are reasons that could lead to the real issues being addressed
Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 22 April 20:29
I think you have both missed the point. The countdown timer is likely to encourage people to abuse the system, not promote safe behaviour. In what world would any responsible organisation consider that a good idea?
"Lets put up timers so people jump the barriers and kill themselves and delay thousands of people costing hundreds of thousands in compensation and forcing the emergency services to have to recover body parts and prompting a full time consuming and expensive inquiry for each and every incident JUST so someone can make a point about having to wait for a few minutes"
Cant see that one being signed off personally.
The solution is to upgrade or close crossings, reducing risk and minimising likelihood of incidents. This process is costly and time consuming so crossings are addressed on a priority basis. In the interim putting up enforcement cameras (the stick) to try to encourage the 1% not to risk their lives, is hardly a terrible idea is it? The cost of installing and running the cameras far outweighs any income. Theyre not speed cameras catching large volumes of people and generating a profit.
Being realistic and looking at the sheer complexity of the railway system and the issues it faces (fares, investment, capacity et) I hardly think anyone in authority is suddenly going to prioritise reducibg level crossing closure times over say, HS2 etc
"Lets put up timers so people jump the barriers and kill themselves and delay thousands of people costing hundreds of thousands in compensation and forcing the emergency services to have to recover body parts and prompting a full time consuming and expensive inquiry for each and every incident JUST so someone can make a point about having to wait for a few minutes"
Cant see that one being signed off personally.
The solution is to upgrade or close crossings, reducing risk and minimising likelihood of incidents. This process is costly and time consuming so crossings are addressed on a priority basis. In the interim putting up enforcement cameras (the stick) to try to encourage the 1% not to risk their lives, is hardly a terrible idea is it? The cost of installing and running the cameras far outweighs any income. Theyre not speed cameras catching large volumes of people and generating a profit.
Being realistic and looking at the sheer complexity of the railway system and the issues it faces (fares, investment, capacity et) I hardly think anyone in authority is suddenly going to prioritise reducibg level crossing closure times over say, HS2 etc
sparks85 said:
I think you have both missed the point. The countdown timer is likely to encourage people to abuse the system, not promote safe behaviour. In what world would any responsible organisation consider that a good idea?
"Lets put up timers so people jump the barriers and kill themselves and delay thousands of people costing hundreds of thousands in compensation and forcing the emergency services to have to recover body parts and prompting a full time consuming and expensive inquiry for each and every incident JUST so someone can make a point about having to wait for a few minutes"
Cant see that one being signed off personally.
Why not? Is it any worse than the already signed off system that says "let's make people wait at barriers for a totally indeterminate time but long enough for them to consider taking risks, so they end up jumping the barriers and killing themselves, delay thousands of people costing hundreds of thousands in compensation and forcing the emergency services to have to recover body parts and prompting a full time consuming and expensive inquiry for each and every incident just because someone wasn't given enough information to allow them to get on with their lives?"Lets put up timers so people jump the barriers and kill themselves and delay thousands of people costing hundreds of thousands in compensation and forcing the emergency services to have to recover body parts and prompting a full time consuming and expensive inquiry for each and every incident JUST so someone can make a point about having to wait for a few minutes"
Cant see that one being signed off personally.
Mave said:
sparks85 said:
I think you have both missed the point. The countdown timer is likely to encourage people to abuse the system, not promote safe behaviour. In what world would any responsible organisation consider that a good idea?
"Lets put up timers so people jump the barriers and kill themselves and delay thousands of people costing hundreds of thousands in compensation and forcing the emergency services to have to recover body parts and prompting a full time consuming and expensive inquiry for each and every incident JUST so someone can make a point about having to wait for a few minutes"
Cant see that one being signed off personally.
Why not? Is it any worse than the already signed off system that says "let's make people wait at barriers for a totally indeterminate time but long enough for them to consider taking risks, so they end up jumping the barriers and killing themselves, delay thousands of people costing hundreds of thousands in compensation and forcing the emergency services to have to recover body parts and prompting a full time consuming and expensive inquiry for each and every incident just because someone wasn't given enough information to allow them to get on with their lives?"Lets put up timers so people jump the barriers and kill themselves and delay thousands of people costing hundreds of thousands in compensation and forcing the emergency services to have to recover body parts and prompting a full time consuming and expensive inquiry for each and every incident JUST so someone can make a point about having to wait for a few minutes"
Cant see that one being signed off personally.
Look, I'm not arguing the crossings are perfect. But what I am saying is, the general public don't realise that all across the network, crossings are being assessed and improved. Just because the one local crossing you use or one you read about in the papers doesnt seem to be improving, it doesnt mean that nothing is being done on a wider scale. There are finite resources and even if there were more money to throw at it, it wouldn't solve the problem.
Whilst it is a cliche, many decades of significant underinvestment in the railway have left us with a infrastructure that it is not up to modern standards.
sparks85 said:
In a word, yes - you would be increasing the risk - i.e the likelihood or odds of an incident occuring. Anything that increases the risk profile won't make it past the development stage - for a good reason.
Look, I'm not arguing the crossings are perfect. But what I am saying is, the general public don't realise that all across the network, crossings are being assessed and improved. Just because the one local crossing you use or one you read about in the papers doesnt seem to be improving, it doesnt mean that nothing is being done on a wider scale. There are finite resources and even if there were more money to throw at it, it wouldn't solve the problem.
Whilst it is a cliche, many decades of significant underinvestment in the railway have left us with a infrastructure that it is not up to modern standards.
The problem with that argument is that this is not a problem that suddenly turned up out of the blue last Thursday afternoon - this matter has been ongoing for getting on for 100 years, since road traffic began to grow exponentially after the First World War.Look, I'm not arguing the crossings are perfect. But what I am saying is, the general public don't realise that all across the network, crossings are being assessed and improved. Just because the one local crossing you use or one you read about in the papers doesnt seem to be improving, it doesnt mean that nothing is being done on a wider scale. There are finite resources and even if there were more money to throw at it, it wouldn't solve the problem.
Whilst it is a cliche, many decades of significant underinvestment in the railway have left us with a infrastructure that it is not up to modern standards.
I can give you examples of level crossings that were replaced by bridges in the 1930s. Here's one to be going on with:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.890504,-1.527829...
This is the A35 where it crosses the railway at Ashurst station in the New Forest (I happen to know about that one because another forum I contribute to had a "guess the location" thread and it took us all about 3 weeks of research to suss out where that level crossing was and why we can't see it now!)
A bridge replaced a level crossing at Poole in the late 60s/ early 70s:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.719495,-1.981248...
There will be hundreds of other examples around the country but these are just two I happen to know about (pure coincidence that they are within 20 miles of each other and nowhere near where I live
)Bleating about "underinvestment" doesn't hold water either. Certainly there have been periods of underinvestment in the railways, especially during the later nationalisation era but, for example, the 1955 Modernisation Programme threw a king's ransom at the railways and, as I pointed out earlier, the pre-nationalisation Southern Railway was spending money on this problem 80-plus years ago.
Network Rail seem hell-bent on throwing a lot of money at the symptom of the problem. This money would be better spent dealing with the cause.
What about this beauty here. On the Main road out of Harrogate:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.998408,-1.499881...
You can quite easily wait 5 minutes for a train to go past..
..Which is going at walking pace and stopping at the station.
In fact you can wait 5 minutes for a train to pull into the station, load/unload and then pull over the crossing at a little over walking pace.
Why not just put the barrier down when it stops at the station?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.998408,-1.499881...
You can quite easily wait 5 minutes for a train to go past..
..Which is going at walking pace and stopping at the station.
In fact you can wait 5 minutes for a train to pull into the station, load/unload and then pull over the crossing at a little over walking pace.
Why not just put the barrier down when it stops at the station?
Pwig said:
What about this beauty here. On the Main road out of Harrogate:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.998408,-1.499881...
You can quite easily wait 5 minutes for a train to go past..
..Which is going at walking pace and stopping at the station.
In fact you can wait 5 minutes for a train to pull into the station, load/unload and then pull over the crossing at a little over walking pace.
Why not just put the barrier down when it stops at the station?
It's something to do with them not trusting the brakes, there was an earlier post on it.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.998408,-1.499881...
You can quite easily wait 5 minutes for a train to go past..
..Which is going at walking pace and stopping at the station.
In fact you can wait 5 minutes for a train to pull into the station, load/unload and then pull over the crossing at a little over walking pace.
Why not just put the barrier down when it stops at the station?
However you've highighted another issue
Why do they place railway furniture so close to the crossing so you've got just about zero sight line of anything coming down the track. I think there was a collision last year on a gated crossing where the farmer checks nothings coming, opens the gates, eases forward his pick up truck to see if it's still clear and the nose gets taken off by a train
Examples of inconsistency and common sense
Wokingham has three level crossing in two miles going out from wokingham, the Station one is closed for several minutes before the train arrives.
The next LC (Starlane full barrier) i think is also controlled by the same Box and drops several minutes before the train. It even stays down, as does the station one if there is a gap of two minutes between trains.
The next one ( Waterloo Road is half barrier and has the minimum time sequence and is up and down like a w
es drawers
Now WHY cant the Starlane one be like this?
Is it because some driver decided to drive into the side of a train several years ago there?
Commomn sense
KIngsknowe station Scotland
Normal auto sequence on non stopping train both ways and for stoppo#ing trains in the Edinburgh direction
BUT for trains going out of Edinburgh the barriers are still up even as the train approaches the station and stops. Passengers get on/off and when ready to go, Driver gets out of cab and hits a button that activates the crossing. Once crossing secured off he goes...Now that is clever
Wokingham has three level crossing in two miles going out from wokingham, the Station one is closed for several minutes before the train arrives.
The next LC (Starlane full barrier) i think is also controlled by the same Box and drops several minutes before the train. It even stays down, as does the station one if there is a gap of two minutes between trains.
The next one ( Waterloo Road is half barrier and has the minimum time sequence and is up and down like a w
es drawersNow WHY cant the Starlane one be like this?
Is it because some driver decided to drive into the side of a train several years ago there?
Commomn sense
KIngsknowe station Scotland
Normal auto sequence on non stopping train both ways and for stoppo#ing trains in the Edinburgh direction
BUT for trains going out of Edinburgh the barriers are still up even as the train approaches the station and stops. Passengers get on/off and when ready to go, Driver gets out of cab and hits a button that activates the crossing. Once crossing secured off he goes...Now that is clever
Just a few thoughts from someone who has the pleasure – or otherwise – of operating one of these things on almost a daily basis. I certainly wouldn’t say that there’s no room for improvement, but that it’s rather more complex than some seem (understandably) to recognise, with signalling installations (which level crossings form part of) being governed, necessarily, by endless design standards and anything affecting train operations needing to be consulted with numerous train operators.
There was an accident at Athelney AHB (automatic half barriers), just outside Taunton, last year (or late 2013?) where the barriers were down for a little while longer than usual owing to engineering work upsetting the system. The effects were known in advance, and appropriate action taken to minimise the time for which the barriers were down. The motorist involved waited, if I remember correctly, less than two minutes before assuming that the barriers had failed and weaving around them (with tragic consequences), despite the presence of an emergency (public) phone to the signalman.
However you've highighted another issue
Why do they place railway furniture so close to the crossing so you've got just about zero sight line of anything coming down the track. I think there was a collision last year on a gated crossing where the farmer checks nothings coming, opens the gates, eases forward his pick up truck to see if it's still clear and the nose gets taken off by a trainIt’s not just about not trusting the brakes – there’s all sorts of reasons why a train might slip slightly past a signal at danger, from poor rail adhesion in autumn to a misjudgement on the driver’s part. That’s exactly why the overlap came into being, to provide a margin of error. Level crossings and road traffic don’t count as an obstruction in that respect, but it’s quite normal to provide a smaller margin of error for trains approaching a level crossing. Nowadays they do, at least, seem to be moving platform starter signals back away from the crossing in preference to requiring the barriers down before the train can be signalled into the platform.
saaby93 said:
The usual people trying to get through a crossing as a barrier comes down
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-32385550
It looks as though it's one of these once the barriers come down you're stuck for ages crossings
See the car doing a U turn as it's quicker to choose another route rather than wait for the train to come through and the barriers raise again. What sort of time delay causes someone to think like that?
See the 'skill' of the second motorist trying to get through before the second half barriers are down!
Doesn't it leap out with there's a timing issue leading to inappropriate behaviour
How long is too long though? Most of the signal boxes that I work have at least one full-barrier crossing under their control, and the barriers are down for less than three minutes in most cases – the only usual exceptions being when there is more than one train to pass, or when a particularly slow train is involved. I’ve never had them down for anything like 15 minutes (for a single train or otherwise) during normal working though – is there perhaps a hint of exaggeration from the poster who suggested that?!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-32385550
It looks as though it's one of these once the barriers come down you're stuck for ages crossings
See the car doing a U turn as it's quicker to choose another route rather than wait for the train to come through and the barriers raise again. What sort of time delay causes someone to think like that?
See the 'skill' of the second motorist trying to get through before the second half barriers are down!
Doesn't it leap out with there's a timing issue leading to inappropriate behaviour
There was an accident at Athelney AHB (automatic half barriers), just outside Taunton, last year (or late 2013?) where the barriers were down for a little while longer than usual owing to engineering work upsetting the system. The effects were known in advance, and appropriate action taken to minimise the time for which the barriers were down. The motorist involved waited, if I remember correctly, less than two minutes before assuming that the barriers had failed and weaving around them (with tragic consequences), despite the presence of an emergency (public) phone to the signalman.
Dogwatch said:
In the days when there was a signal box at every level crossing the signalman could look outside, see how big the traffic queue was and take a view on whether he would open the gates before the next train. All that the remote signaller sees now is a view restricted to the actual level crossing. What is happening outside this 'bubble' is invisible - there might be one car waiting or fifty.
Does it matter whether there’s one car waiting or fifty? If there’s time for a quick ‘swing’ between trains, then there’s time – otherwise, there isn’t. The principle should be the same, whether the queue is visible or not – raise the barriers if there’s time (usually they auto-raise at CCTV crossings anyway), and start the sequence when necessary for the next train whether the queue has cleared or not. sparks85 said:
I won't get into the detail of signalling but have a read up on track circuits and block signalling. LX's are often on the boundary of a track circuit which means that when you see a train stationary in a station near a LX, the signalling system cannot safely distinguish that the train is stationary AND the crossing can be opened - its one or the other. The problem is, the railway infrastructure is so old, and in particular with signalling, so complex with so many interface and compatibility issues, that correcting these issues are far more expensive and time consuming that the public understand.
I won’t disagree with the underlying principle here, but in the interest of technical accuracy – the problem is usually that the protecting signal (nothing to do with track circuit block joints) is too close to the crossing for a train to approach it safely with the barriers up or that the station platform falls between the protecting signal and the crossing (for much the same reason). It’s not possible, for hopefully obvious reasons, for a simple track circuit to prove that a train is at a stand, but it’s quite normal for timers to be used to determine whether it ought to have done (beyond reasonable doubt). If, at that point, there’s a signal at danger (and a block joint) between the train and the crossing, there shouldn’t be a problem with putting the barriers up or leaving them up – though normally you’d be looking to put them down by then!sparks85 said:
The ungated crossing mentioned earlier is obviously on a lightly used line. Read the signage though and you will see that anyone crossing should call the signaller to confirm it is safe to pass. The crossing probably gets so little rail and road usage that this approach is deemed low enough risk.
In some cases – and I think the one in question – the crossing is quiet enough, trains slow enough and visibility good enough for it to be acceptable for road users to make their own decision on whether it’s safe to cross. Again, though, the principle is sound – the risks are different at different locations, so it follows that the measures necessary in mitigation will be different too.rs1952 said:
The line often taken, both on here and by NR that: "the gates are closed for a reason therefore behave just the way we tell you" isn't working, any more than creating a new speed limit on a piece of road is going to guarantee automatic compliance. Not only is it not working, it will never work, and a new initiative is needed.
I agree that a lot more public education will surely help – not “the barriers are down for this long, deal with it”, but “this is why the barriers need to be down for this long”. I’m sure that there are some cases where the ‘down time’ could be decreased without changes to the infrastructure and without delaying trains – but what incentive is there for Network Rail to push that, no doubt with a bit of a risk to (train) performance?rs1952 said:
There are parts of the world where you will see a timer on a pedestrian crossing, to tell you either how long you have left to cross or how long it will be before the lights change in your favour. Introducing displays like that at level crossing might help people identify the risks more clearly. But that could be a double-edged sword: signs saying "the barriers will be closed for the next 265 seconds" may well encourage non-compliance with the closure, but it would also highlight areas where NR's shortcomings (ie keeping the gates closed for too long) would become all-too-public knowledge.
On a (road) pedestrian crossing, though, the time to the red man or the green man, as appropriate, is a known quantity – even if it’s not on a fixed cycle, the system knows exactly how long a phase is going to last in most cases (ok, a bit simplistic, but hopefully you can see the point). At a level crossing, there’s no way of knowing exactly when the train will arrive or when the barriers will go up – even without a station stop to complicate matters, it’s just not possible to work it out with the current system (it only knows exactly where a train is when it passes over a block joint and occupies the next track circuit, or passes a treadle or similar, and the speed can only be determined at fixed locations using a pair of treadles or similar). What difference would it make, anyway? As already pointed out, it makes no difference to anyone except those who are tempted to physically jump the barriers – and we certainly don’t want to be encouraging that sort of behaviour.saaby93 said:
Pwig said:
What about this beauty here. On the Main road out of Harrogate:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.998408,-1.499881...
You can quite easily wait 5 minutes for a train to go past..
..Which is going at walking pace and stopping at the station.
In fact you can wait 5 minutes for a train to pull into the station, load/unload and then pull over the crossing at a little over walking pace.
Why not just put the barrier down when it stops at the station?
It's something to do with them not trusting the brakes, there was an earlier post on it.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.998408,-1.499881...
You can quite easily wait 5 minutes for a train to go past..
..Which is going at walking pace and stopping at the station.
In fact you can wait 5 minutes for a train to pull into the station, load/unload and then pull over the crossing at a little over walking pace.
Why not just put the barrier down when it stops at the station?
However you've highighted another issue
Why do they place railway furniture so close to the crossing so you've got just about zero sight line of anything coming down the track. I think there was a collision last year on a gated crossing where the farmer checks nothings coming, opens the gates, eases forward his pick up truck to see if it's still clear and the nose gets taken off by a train
sparks85 said:
Hooli said:
eltawater said:
I'd say it's probably fairly unlikely that you'd be smacked sidewards by a high speed locomotive at the roadworks....
What about when they resurface the crossings?Oddly that West Worthing crossing I mentioned earlier had the smallest queues it's ever caused (in my memory) while it was being resurfaced with temporary lights controlling it.
With no trains running, it would simply have been a two way shuttle running of cars controlled by temporary lights.
k that's made worse by the crossing being down for ages when it has no need to be.Nowt wrong with the rest of your post though.
sparks85 said:
In a word, yes - you would be increasing the risk - i.e the likelihood or odds of an incident occuring. Anything that increases the risk profile won't make it past the development stage - for a good reason.
How does it increase the risk profile? Impatient people are impatient. Can't do much about that. The risk of them being hit because they gambled just before the clock got to.zero is exactly the same as if they had no idea when the train was arriving. But patient people become impatient if you make them wait and don't tell them for how long. Surely this is the risk we should be mitigating?Late Turn said:
How long is too long though? Most of the signal boxes that I work have at least one full-barrier crossing under their control, and the barriers are down for less than three minutes in most cases – the only usual exceptions being when there is more than one train to pass, or when a particularly slow train is involved. I’ve never had them down for anything like 15 minutes (for a single train or otherwise) during normal working though – is there perhaps a hint of exaggeration from the poster who suggested that?!
"How long is too long" is a bit like the question "how long is a piece of string" but I'll have a go at answering."Too long" is simply when the gates are closed, nothing seems to be happening, and the non-railway minded public using the level crossing are given no information on why the gates are closed.So it depends on circumstances.
One of the inherent problems is, to my mind, an inherent arrogance within Network Rail, and this is not just my view. A planning application near me included a new pedestrian footbridge over the railway and the Council, the Council no less, made the point that the provision of the footbridge was purely dependent on the willingness of NR to allow it it was purely dependent on NR's agreement and - I quote from the consultation - "Network Rail are a very difficult organisation to deal with."
Some of the problems might be lost in history. When the railways were first built, many level crossings were kept permanently closed against the road until something on the road wanted to cross, and now I stop to think about it, there was one such crossing between Kemble and Swindon until at least just recently (I'm hoping that the recent re-doubling of that line might have seen it upgraded https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.625278,-1.98024,... Those days have generally gone, but perhaps NR haven't corporately realised it yet,
Late Turn said:
Nowadays they do, at least, seem to be moving platform starter signals back away from the crossing in preference to requiring the barriers down before the train can be signalled into the platform.
A good start, and one that I was suggesting a few posts ago. silverfoxcc said:
Examples of inconsistency and common sense
Wokingham has three level crossing in two miles going out from wokingham, the Station one is closed for several minutes before the train arrives.
The next LC (Starlane full barrier) i think is also controlled by the same Box and drops several minutes before the train. It even stays down, as does the station one if there is a gap of two minutes between trains.
The next one ( Waterloo Road is half barrier and has the minimum time sequence and is up and down like a wes drawers
Now WHY cant the Starlane one be like this?
Is it because some driver decided to drive into the side of a train several years ago there?
Commomn sense
KIngsknowe station Scotland
Normal auto sequence on non stopping train both ways and for stoppo#ing trains in the Edinburgh direction
BUT for trains going out of Edinburgh the barriers are still up even as the train approaches the station and stops. Passengers get on/off and when ready to go, Driver gets out of cab and hits a button that activates the crossing. Once crossing secured off he goes...Now that is clever
The fundamental difference between automatic half barrier crossings and full barrier crossings - at the latter, it's necessary to prove that the crossing's clear before the protecting signal can be cleared (which is why the barriers need to go down so much earlier). At an AHB, on the other hand, it's judged that the risk of the crossing being blocked is sufficiently low to allow the train to approach without that confirmation. That, in turn, means that they can only be installed where quite stringent conditions are met, some relating to the road layout and usage - the risk of road vehicles queuing over the crossing. Presumably Star Lane doesn't satisfy those conditions, but Kingsknowe does - the additional controls for stopping trains in the latter case are required to ensure that the barriers aren't down for too long, exactly because of the risk of impatient motorists weaving around them (it's a standard feature, usually with a simple timer rather than a plunger, whenever there's a station or stop signal within the crossing controls).Wokingham has three level crossing in two miles going out from wokingham, the Station one is closed for several minutes before the train arrives.
The next LC (Starlane full barrier) i think is also controlled by the same Box and drops several minutes before the train. It even stays down, as does the station one if there is a gap of two minutes between trains.
The next one ( Waterloo Road is half barrier and has the minimum time sequence and is up and down like a w
es drawersNow WHY cant the Starlane one be like this?
Is it because some driver decided to drive into the side of a train several years ago there?
Commomn sense
KIngsknowe station Scotland
Normal auto sequence on non stopping train both ways and for stoppo#ing trains in the Edinburgh direction
BUT for trains going out of Edinburgh the barriers are still up even as the train approaches the station and stops. Passengers get on/off and when ready to go, Driver gets out of cab and hits a button that activates the crossing. Once crossing secured off he goes...Now that is clever
Mave said:
How does it increase the risk profile? Impatient people are impatient. Can't do much about that. The risk of them being hit because they gambled just before the clock got to.zero is exactly the same as if they had no idea when the train was arriving. But patient people become impatient if you make them wait and don't tell them for how long. Surely this is the risk we should be mitigating?
At the moment, pedestrians at full barrier crossings don't jump the barriers very often at all. I can well imagine that a countdown timer (which, as I pointed out, isn't a practical idea at the moment anyway!) might tempt more to start doing it - even those folk who'd wait, if a little impatiently, otherwise - if they can see that it'll *definitely* be 'x' seconds until the train arrives. Quite apart from the risk of, perhaps, a different train making an unsignalled move not triggering the timer (and getting to the crossing first!), it's certainly not something to be encouraged.Just going back to an earlier point that I forgot to mention - that of visibility down the line. There's absolutely no need for any visibility at any sort of 'active' crossing - they don't rely, at all, on users checking for trains themselves. Those that do rely on the user's judgement - user-worked crossings without telephones - should have sufficient visibility for the user to make a decision on whether it's safe to cross before they actually start to cross. That's all part of the risk assessment process (which I don't know a huge amount about) for individual crossings - and indeed some of ours have recently received telephones, probably having been found to be deficient in some way against the standards.
Late Turn,
you appear to work for NR , its the fact that Waterloo Rd and Star Lane are less than 1 mile apart, yet one is deemed ok to be AHB and the other operates like the local Castles Portcullis shutting for 'hours' at a time. I might time it one day, not to prove a point, but to give you an idea on the problem.
you appear to work for NR , its the fact that Waterloo Rd and Star Lane are less than 1 mile apart, yet one is deemed ok to be AHB and the other operates like the local Castles Portcullis shutting for 'hours' at a time. I might time it one day, not to prove a point, but to give you an idea on the problem.
silverfoxcc said:
Late Turn,
you appear to work for NR , its the fact that Waterloo Rd and Star Lane are less than 1 mile apart, yet one is deemed ok to be AHB and the other operates like the local Castles Portcullis shutting for 'hours' at a time. I might time it one day, not to prove a point, but to give you an idea on the problem.
I've explained why there's a difference - Waterloo Rd almost certainly doesn't meet the criteria for an automatic half barrier crossing. You don't need to time them to prove that there's a difference between the two - a full barrier crossing needs to be lowered much sooner to ensure that the protecting signals are cleared in time to avoid checking the approaching train. I'm sure that they're not actually down for hours at a time though...you appear to work for NR , its the fact that Waterloo Rd and Star Lane are less than 1 mile apart, yet one is deemed ok to be AHB and the other operates like the local Castles Portcullis shutting for 'hours' at a time. I might time it one day, not to prove a point, but to give you an idea on the problem.
Late Turn said:
sparks85 said:
I won't get into the detail of signalling but have a read up on track circuits and block signalling. LX's are often on the boundary of a track circuit which means that when you see a train stationary in a station near a LX, the signalling system cannot safely distinguish that the train is stationary AND the crossing can be opened - its one or the other. The problem is, the railway infrastructure is so old, and in particular with signalling, so complex with so many interface and compatibility issues, that correcting these issues are far more expensive and time consuming that the public understand.
I won’t disagree with the underlying principle here, but in the interest of technical accuracy – the problem is usually that the protecting signal (nothing to do with track circuit block joints) is too close to the crossing for a train to approach it safely with the barriers up or that the station platform falls between the protecting signal and the crossing (for much the same reason). It’s not possible, for hopefully obvious reasons, for a simple track circuit to prove that a train is at a stand, but it’s quite normal for timers to be used to determine whether it ought to have done (beyond reasonable doubt). If, at that point, there’s a signal at danger (and a block joint) between the train and the crossing, there shouldn’t be a problem with putting the barriers up or leaving them up – though normally you’d be looking to put them down by then!Hooli - The resurfacing quote about the 4 way junction - there's no way I am aware of that the crossing could be resurfaced without the train service being halted (i.e during engineering access). Looking on Streetview it is an MCB-CCTV (so controlled by a signaller in a remote location). If there were temporary lights in place I dont know how the timing of the lights could be visible to the signaller and integrated into the crossing timing if trains were running.
RS1952 - The comment about the Council calling NR difficult did make me chuckle. Whilst I dont know the details of that particular case, I do know that without fail, local councils were probably the single biggest obstruction to actually making any kind of changes or improvements. Anything from an objection against the lights, noise, unwillingness to contribute funding (the council is technically responsible for the road approaches, signage, markings etc), failure to be clear or prompt with planning applications, objecting to modern technology, the list goes on. They are the single reason most LX projects take so long!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff