Closing all rail crossings in suffolk
Discussion
ecsrobin said:
We used to have once a year the rail company come and give lectures at school on rail safety. Does that still happen?
Ha! And where is the Tufty Club, and lights on bicycles? Common sense is old fashioned...What if someone was killed on a crossing whilst using a mobile phone? Whose fault then?
(Not to mention being trapped in a hole with an owl)
This is what happens when you have to pander to the stupid who can't use common sense when it comes to anything safetywise.
They're upgrading the Bicester line to join the Marylebone mainline, the old line had a pedestrian crossing joining 2 parts of town, now that more than 1 train a day will pass it they've built a bridge.
The construction company have said its the worst bridge they've ever had to design/build but the council insisted on it.
They're upgrading the Bicester line to join the Marylebone mainline, the old line had a pedestrian crossing joining 2 parts of town, now that more than 1 train a day will pass it they've built a bridge.
The construction company have said its the worst bridge they've ever had to design/build but the council insisted on it.
Nickyboy said:
This is what happens when you have to pander to the stupid who can't use common sense when it comes to anything safetywise.
They're upgrading the Bicester line to join the Marylebone mainline, the old line had a pedestrian crossing joining 2 parts of town, now that more than 1 train a day will pass it they've built a bridge.
The construction company have said its the worst bridge they've ever had to design/build but the council insisted on it.
Soon to be 100mph railway with the possibility of an Oxford/Cambridge service and the Manchester Bournemouth routed down the WC to a point just south of Milton Keynes then this route to Oxford. They're upgrading the Bicester line to join the Marylebone mainline, the old line had a pedestrian crossing joining 2 parts of town, now that more than 1 train a day will pass it they've built a bridge.
The construction company have said its the worst bridge they've ever had to design/build but the council insisted on it.
Nickyboy said:
This is what happens when you have to pander to the stupid who can't use common sense when it comes to anything safetywise.
They're upgrading the Bicester line to join the Marylebone mainline, the old line had a pedestrian crossing joining 2 parts of town, now that more than 1 train a day will pass it they've built a bridge.
The construction company have said its the worst bridge they've ever had to design/build but the council insisted on it.
Is it one of those flume things? Did the risk assessment include what happens when it's icy? Steps and a ramp? Steps can be dangerous y'know.They're upgrading the Bicester line to join the Marylebone mainline, the old line had a pedestrian crossing joining 2 parts of town, now that more than 1 train a day will pass it they've built a bridge.
The construction company have said its the worst bridge they've ever had to design/build but the council insisted on it.
I live in Suffolk, specifically very close to the railway line. About 50% of my non-commuting routes involve crossings like this. I'm soon to move to the other side of the railway line so it's going to make that figure even worse!
There are alternatives - but a lot of them add miles and miles onto short journeys.
I'm not so concerned about closing ones where there are alternatives (e.g. Stowmarket has 2 crossings + a bridge), but there are examples in Mellis (as shown in the article) and Haughley where the next bridged crossing is a 10 minute detour.
There are alternatives - but a lot of them add miles and miles onto short journeys.
I'm not so concerned about closing ones where there are alternatives (e.g. Stowmarket has 2 crossings + a bridge), but there are examples in Mellis (as shown in the article) and Haughley where the next bridged crossing is a 10 minute detour.
Simpo Two said:
Perhaps the answer is for NR to fit a footbridge at each closed level crossing. A one-off fixed cost. But then I suppose the disabled will moan.
There were two foot crossings over the tracks near where I live which were perfectly adequate for hundreds of school kids crossing every day (there were no recorded incidents that I am aware of) have been closed and a large, no enormous, bridge has been constructed at a reported cost of £2.4M which took months - way beyond the original estimate. Part of the reason for the cost being so high is that the bridge had to be suitable for disabled access so instead of being a traditional flight of steps over a straight bridge the engineers have come up with this monster:
The only thing that pisses me off now is that the trains STILL sound their horns when they pass the bridge - WHY??
aka_kerrly said:
The only thing that pisses me off now is that the trains STILL sound their horns when they pass the bridge - WHY??
Because there will be a sign telling the drivers to do so because there is (was) a level crossing there, and probably nobody has bothered to send somebody out to take it down.It happens in all businesses, especially larger ones, and is usually known as "the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing"
I used to work for NR as a PM delivering LX upgrade projects.
You are welcome to ask me any questions and I will do my best to answer them. I will try to answer many of the comments posted.
The motivation behind their closure is predominantly that even a single death is one too many and NR must do as much as reasonably possible to reduce this number.
Any discussion like this always brings out the 'common sense', 'in my day' and 'let nature take its course' arguments, which for a national corporate in the modern day is not exactly a sensible strategy.
The radar controlled crossings are called MCB OD (Obstacle Detection) and utilise a radar and lidar to automatically prove that the crossing is clear of pedestrians, vehicles and obstructions. The crossing is interlocked with the signalling, which in basic terms means the train signals cannot show a green aspect until the crossing is proven clear.
There are benefits of rail journey time saving and maintaining or increasing the line speed, but no matter what joe public thinks, Level Crossings are primarily assessed for closure or upgrade based upon safety risk only.
Having 'proper gates' is not too expensive and Network Rail is not run for profit (it is effectively a public sector organisation and it's debt is now shown on the Government's books). Some of the comments about removing crossings for profit motives are laughable if you understood the cost, effort and complexity of removing them.
Closing every crossing in sight is also not an option - funding is tight and they are selected based upon their risk profile.
Amendments to crossings are a very hard sell to the public as aside from stations, they are the only real interface the public has with the infrastructure. People naturally are suspicious of change and struggle to understand their local crossing's fitment into a much wider picture. Invariably the local community believes they are being targeted for one reason or another; in reality, it goes back to risk profile and the drive to improve safety.
People also do not appreciate the impact any incident on the network has. Invariably this will come at a relatively large financial cost, in terms of delay compensation to TOC's, the cost of repairing, any incident investigation and subsequent improvements demanded. All this on a network that is stretched far beyond what the public have any understanding of.
There are many crossing, particularly in Anglia, where it is literally a gated footpath across the lines. Many of these experience such low foot traffic they will remain for many years as other crossings take priority.
Network Rail still sends educational officers into schools as part of the need to educate children on the dangers. If you want your school to receive a visit then contact them through their website in the first instance.
However there are some examples, such as the Bicester (?) photo posted, where the alternative foot bridge is not exactly an un-intrusive development. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said the Council though - NR has clear hierarchies for options at LXing's, which are invariably meddled with by some local council department who don't understand rail design, construction, risk assessments or town planning - they simply demand something without thinking through the consequences and stick by their demands even when they are a bit ridiculous.
The footbridge for school children however - one of the riskiest demographics and relatively high volumes of foot traffic. I can't see why you would object to a footbridge crossing there? Granted the cost is excessive but the principle of a bridge seems sound - though hard to judge these as I don't have the full understanding of the site.
And yes there is probably a sign (whistle board) instructing drivers to sound their horn - or by force of habit drivers still do it. If it causes an issue, contact NR and explain this - ask Ops to be informed and for Maintenance to remove the sign.
Whilst a bit of a ramble, I hope this has shed some light and you are welcome to ask any questions.
You are welcome to ask me any questions and I will do my best to answer them. I will try to answer many of the comments posted.
The motivation behind their closure is predominantly that even a single death is one too many and NR must do as much as reasonably possible to reduce this number.
Any discussion like this always brings out the 'common sense', 'in my day' and 'let nature take its course' arguments, which for a national corporate in the modern day is not exactly a sensible strategy.
The radar controlled crossings are called MCB OD (Obstacle Detection) and utilise a radar and lidar to automatically prove that the crossing is clear of pedestrians, vehicles and obstructions. The crossing is interlocked with the signalling, which in basic terms means the train signals cannot show a green aspect until the crossing is proven clear.
There are benefits of rail journey time saving and maintaining or increasing the line speed, but no matter what joe public thinks, Level Crossings are primarily assessed for closure or upgrade based upon safety risk only.
Having 'proper gates' is not too expensive and Network Rail is not run for profit (it is effectively a public sector organisation and it's debt is now shown on the Government's books). Some of the comments about removing crossings for profit motives are laughable if you understood the cost, effort and complexity of removing them.
Closing every crossing in sight is also not an option - funding is tight and they are selected based upon their risk profile.
Amendments to crossings are a very hard sell to the public as aside from stations, they are the only real interface the public has with the infrastructure. People naturally are suspicious of change and struggle to understand their local crossing's fitment into a much wider picture. Invariably the local community believes they are being targeted for one reason or another; in reality, it goes back to risk profile and the drive to improve safety.
People also do not appreciate the impact any incident on the network has. Invariably this will come at a relatively large financial cost, in terms of delay compensation to TOC's, the cost of repairing, any incident investigation and subsequent improvements demanded. All this on a network that is stretched far beyond what the public have any understanding of.
There are many crossing, particularly in Anglia, where it is literally a gated footpath across the lines. Many of these experience such low foot traffic they will remain for many years as other crossings take priority.
Network Rail still sends educational officers into schools as part of the need to educate children on the dangers. If you want your school to receive a visit then contact them through their website in the first instance.
However there are some examples, such as the Bicester (?) photo posted, where the alternative foot bridge is not exactly an un-intrusive development. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said the Council though - NR has clear hierarchies for options at LXing's, which are invariably meddled with by some local council department who don't understand rail design, construction, risk assessments or town planning - they simply demand something without thinking through the consequences and stick by their demands even when they are a bit ridiculous.
The footbridge for school children however - one of the riskiest demographics and relatively high volumes of foot traffic. I can't see why you would object to a footbridge crossing there? Granted the cost is excessive but the principle of a bridge seems sound - though hard to judge these as I don't have the full understanding of the site.
And yes there is probably a sign (whistle board) instructing drivers to sound their horn - or by force of habit drivers still do it. If it causes an issue, contact NR and explain this - ask Ops to be informed and for Maintenance to remove the sign.
Whilst a bit of a ramble, I hope this has shed some light and you are welcome to ask any questions.
aka_kerrly said:
There were two foot crossings over the tracks near where I live which were perfectly adequate for hundreds of school kids crossing every day (there were no recorded incidents that I am aware of) have been closed and a large, no enormous, bridge has been constructed at a reported cost of £2.4M which took months - way beyond the original estimate.
Part of the reason for the cost being so high is that the bridge had to be suitable for disabled access so instead of being a traditional flight of steps over a straight bridge the engineers have come up with this monster:
The only thing that pisses me off now is that the trains STILL sound their horns when they pass the bridge - WHY??
See my pic above, same reason its such a monstrosity. Part of the reason for the cost being so high is that the bridge had to be suitable for disabled access so instead of being a traditional flight of steps over a straight bridge the engineers have come up with this monster:
The only thing that pisses me off now is that the trains STILL sound their horns when they pass the bridge - WHY??
sparks85 said:
I used to work for NR as a PM delivering LX upgrade projects.
The footbridge for school children however - one of the riskiest demographics and relatively high volumes of foot traffic. I can't see why you would object to a footbridge crossing there? Granted the cost is excessive but the principle of a bridge seems sound - though hard to judge these as I don't have the full understanding of the site.
And yes there is probably a sign (whistle board) instructing drivers to sound their horn - or by force of habit drivers still do it. If it causes an issue, contact NR and explain this - ask Ops to be informed and for Maintenance to remove the sign.
Whilst a bit of a ramble, I hope this has shed some light and you are welcome to ask any questions.
Appreciate the reply, thanks for taking the time to explain!The footbridge for school children however - one of the riskiest demographics and relatively high volumes of foot traffic. I can't see why you would object to a footbridge crossing there? Granted the cost is excessive but the principle of a bridge seems sound - though hard to judge these as I don't have the full understanding of the site.
And yes there is probably a sign (whistle board) instructing drivers to sound their horn - or by force of habit drivers still do it. If it causes an issue, contact NR and explain this - ask Ops to be informed and for Maintenance to remove the sign.
Whilst a bit of a ramble, I hope this has shed some light and you are welcome to ask any questions.
Don't get me wrong I do not object to a crossing being built for the benefit of the children attending the schools on the other side of the track.
My objection was the scale and location given that the road to access the bridge is meant to be an access only for a private car park & a row of a dozen houses. By building the bridge the volume of traffic & people has increased enormously especially at school start/finish time which I believe poses more of a hazard.
Regarding sounding the horn if the whistle board is still on site then the blackbox data recorder will the register the horn sounding, certain driver managers look for this sort of thing when doing driver downloads. As far as the manager is concerned using the horn correctly is a must, regardless of whether the crossing has been closed or not, until such time as NR actually remove the whistle board and post it as removed in publications then we must continue to whistle. Driver downloads from data recorders are apart of our on going assessment process,I've got one outstanding from Monday, so no doubt my gaffer will be wanting my signature and a little chat(nothing to worry about) .
Nickyboy said:
The construction company have said its the worst bridge they've ever had to design/build but the council insisted on it.
Blame the EU.How much cost is acceptable, I wonder, to ensure that one bloke in a wheelchair can use a station? £1M? £10M? £100M? £1Bn? £10Bn? At what point does the brain engage and say 'Actally this is stupid'?
W124Bob said:
Regarding sounding the horn if the whistle board is still on site then the blackbox data recorder will the register the horn sounding, certain driver managers look for this sort of thing when doing driver downloads. As far as the manager is concerned using the horn correctly is a must, regardless of whether the crossing has been closed or not, until such time as NR actually remove the whistle board and post it as removed in publications then we must continue to whistle. Driver downloads from data recorders are apart of our on going assessment process,I've got one outstanding from Monday, so no doubt my gaffer will be wanting my signature and a little chat(nothing to worry about) .
You learn something new every day! Interesting to hear it from the drivers perspective.Simpo Two said:
Blame the EU.
How much cost is acceptable, I wonder, to ensure that one bloke in a wheelchair can use a station? £1M? £10M? £100M? £1Bn? £10Bn? At what point does the brain engage and say 'Actally this is stupid'?
Yes, the DDA really is pointless isn't it? I mean, sod all those people in wheelchairs, and mothers with buggies/prams...How much cost is acceptable, I wonder, to ensure that one bloke in a wheelchair can use a station? £1M? £10M? £100M? £1Bn? £10Bn? At what point does the brain engage and say 'Actally this is stupid'?
Simpo Two said:
Nickyboy said:
The construction company have said its the worst bridge they've ever had to design/build but the council insisted on it.
Blame the EU.How much cost is acceptable, I wonder, to ensure that one bloke in a wheelchair can use a station? £1M? £10M? £100M? £1Bn? £10Bn? At what point does the brain engage and say 'Actally this is stupid'?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff