Two killed at a crossing near Horsham
Discussion
Nik da Greek said:
Jesus Christ, are you still chuntering on 
kwits, it's all their own stupidity. Stop making allowances entitling people to make incredibly stupid and life-endangering decisions. There are no shades of grey here. The barrier is down, the lights are flashing, YOU DO NOT DRIVE AROUND IT no matter how temporarily inconvenient you might feel it to be. Ever.
Why are you so incapable of understanding this incredibly simple premise?
saaby93 said:
What theyve done is led people to treat the red wig wags as amber.
No, what people have done is fail to understand the law governing motor vehicle use on the road. The Highway Code is unequivocal and very specific on level crossings. You are expected to be conversant with the Highway Code in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. They have not been "led" to be ignorant fkwits, it's all their own stupidity. Stop making allowances entitling people to make incredibly stupid and life-endangering decisions. There are no shades of grey here. The barrier is down, the lights are flashing, YOU DO NOT DRIVE AROUND IT no matter how temporarily inconvenient you might feel it to be. Ever. Why are you so incapable of understanding this incredibly simple premise?
Nik da Greek said:
saaby93 said:
Wonder how long it will take until we hear why the guy thought it was a good idea to cross 
Given that he's now part of the landscape, probably never. Or do you believe in afterlife mediums as well as in reducing society to the lowest common denominator?If the guys just come up to the blinking wig wags and gone across without thinking, he's banged to rights
If on the other hand the operation there has led him to think it would be safe to cross, future practices ought to change so it doesnt happen again.
We dont know yet.
Nik da Greek said:
Nope, I'm done. Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience
One of the biggest game changers in the rail industry was at SN109https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladbroke_Grove_rail_...
two things were known
Trains were supposed to stop at red lights there.
Trains were often not stopping there
Despite it being known that trains were not stopping, nothing was changed - it was obviously the drivers fault
Until one of the worst rail 'accidents' occurred.
If so many drivers were getting it wrong maybe it wasnt the drivers fault
What was it about SN109 that drivers were missing it?
Funnily enough, one of the drivers I work with currently trained and worked with Michael Hodder. I've heard quite a lot about the signal in question. It had been reported many times in the months preceding Ladbroke Grove by drivers with a huge range of experience. It was poorly sited and often washed out with sunlight. It wasn't provided with TPWS or AWS and it protected a conflicting move in addition to being a routeset that wasn't often utitilised.
Ask not "why Ladbroke Grove?" but "How come it took as long as it did?". That signal was a grenade with the pin out
The railway doesn't always listen to the people at the coal face when it should do, and change (as has been repeatedly explained to you) is a very slow process. The Rule Book is a litany of death. Every so often someone finds a way of killing themselves on the railway in a manner no-one had managed before. Then they write a new rule to stop anyone else from doing it.
What's your actual point?
Ask not "why Ladbroke Grove?" but "How come it took as long as it did?". That signal was a grenade with the pin out
The railway doesn't always listen to the people at the coal face when it should do, and change (as has been repeatedly explained to you) is a very slow process. The Rule Book is a litany of death. Every so often someone finds a way of killing themselves on the railway in a manner no-one had managed before. Then they write a new rule to stop anyone else from doing it.
What's your actual point?
Edited by Nik da Greek on Tuesday 27th February 19:45
saaby93 said:
sparks85 said:
As mentioned previously the behaviour of the general public is well understood and there is a programme in place to address the issues. It won't happen overnight but we as an industry are moving towards a safer railway.
Any sign of it yet?"We can eliminate risk by closing crossings where agreement can be reached to do so. Between 2009 and 2017 we delivered the following as part of our commitment to a safer railway:
closed 1,100 level crossings
improved sighting at over 1,100 crossings
fitted LED road traffic lights at 500 crossings, significantly improving their brightness
introduced new technology to better inform users of a second train approaching the crossing in quick succession to the first
repositioned over 250 crossing phones into safe areas for users
designed and commissioned a new type of level crossing featuring automatic obstacle detection technology
installed barriers at 66 open crossings
introduced a fleet of mobile safety vehicles for operation by the British Transport Police to discourage deliberate misuse and to record offences at level crossings
rolled out level crossing red light safety cameras, with 33 currently installed across the network (December 2017)
installed power-operated gates at 77 user worked crossings
commissioned 65 audible warning devices at high risk footpath crossings
delivered a programme of miniature stop lights for installation at user worked crossings."
Source: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/...
And as I have mentioned a number of times, no one in the industry is pretending the job is done, and there is plenty way to go - but it takes time and money, for reasons previously explained (and apparently ignored by yourself).
saaby93 said:
Nik da Greek said:
Jesus Christ, are you still chuntering on
kwits, it's all their own stupidity. Stop making allowances entitling people to make incredibly stupid and life-endangering decisions. There are no shades of grey here. The barrier is down, the lights are flashing, YOU DO NOT DRIVE AROUND IT no matter how temporarily inconvenient you might feel it to be. Ever.
Why are you so incapable of understanding this incredibly simple premise?
Let's just say unless you can try to understand, it wouldnt be much use in safety systems and leave it at that saaby93 said:
What theyve done is led people to treat the red wig wags as amber.
No, what people have done is fail to understand the law governing motor vehicle use on the road. The Highway Code is unequivocal and very specific on level crossings. You are expected to be conversant with the Highway Code in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. They have not been "led" to be ignorant fkwits, it's all their own stupidity. Stop making allowances entitling people to make incredibly stupid and life-endangering decisions. There are no shades of grey here. The barrier is down, the lights are flashing, YOU DO NOT DRIVE AROUND IT no matter how temporarily inconvenient you might feel it to be. Ever. Why are you so incapable of understanding this incredibly simple premise?
Edited by sparks85 on Tuesday 27th February 20:12
sparks85 said:
saaby93 said:
sparks85 said:
As mentioned previously the behaviour of the general public is well understood and there is a programme in place to address the issues. It won't happen overnight but we as an industry are moving towards a safer railway.
Any sign of it yet?"We can eliminate risk by closing crossings where agreement can be reached to do so. Between 2009 and 2017 we delivered the following as part of our commitment to a safer railway:
closed 1,100 level crossings
improved sighting at over 1,100 crossings
fitted LED road traffic lights at 500 crossings, significantly improving their brightness
introduced new technology to better inform users of a second train approaching the crossing in quick succession to the first
repositioned over 250 crossing phones into safe areas for users
designed and commissioned a new type of level crossing featuring automatic obstacle detection technology
installed barriers at 66 open crossings
introduced a fleet of mobile safety vehicles for operation by the British Transport Police to discourage deliberate misuse and to record offences at level crossings
rolled out level crossing red light safety cameras, with 33 currently installed across the network (December 2017)
installed power-operated gates at 77 user worked crossings
commissioned 65 audible warning devices at high risk footpath crossings
delivered a programme of miniature stop lights for installation at user worked crossings."
Source: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/...
And as I have mentioned a number of times, no one in the industry is pretending the job is done, and there is plenty way to go - but it takes time and money, for reasons previously explained (and apparently ignored by yourself).
This is good
improved sighting at over 1,100 crossings
fitted LED road traffic lights at 500 crossings, significantly improving their brightness
introduced new technology to better inform users of a second train approaching the crossing in quick succession to the first
repositioned over 250 crossing phones into safe areas for users
This may not be so good
closed 1,100 level crossings
It would be interesting to go through those now and see how many could be reopened subject to above
saaby93 said:
One of the biggest game changers in the rail industry was at SN109
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladbroke_Grove_rail_...
two things were known
Trains were supposed to stop at red lights there.
Trains were often not stopping there
Despite it being known that trains were not stopping, nothing was changed - it was obviously the drivers fault
Until one of the worst rail 'accidents' occurred.
If so many drivers were getting it wrong maybe it wasnt the drivers fault
What was it about SN109 that drivers were missing it?
It's hard to believe but that was nearly 20 years ago, pre-Network Rail era - which is relevant for reasons I previously explained. The industry has moved on a long way, the seriousness of safety has increased tenfold since then and as I have explained (numerous times) the improvements necessary are being rolled out across the country.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladbroke_Grove_rail_...
two things were known
Trains were supposed to stop at red lights there.
Trains were often not stopping there
Despite it being known that trains were not stopping, nothing was changed - it was obviously the drivers fault
Until one of the worst rail 'accidents' occurred.
If so many drivers were getting it wrong maybe it wasnt the drivers fault
What was it about SN109 that drivers were missing it?
As with everything in life, unfortunately change is often only catalysed by terrible incidents. I'm sure no-one could have foreseen the fact that the combinations of design and materials at Grenfell could have quite such catastrophic consequences, for example. What about the de Havilland Comet disaster? Senna's crash at Imola?
Level Crossing's however are not a new phenomenon and neither are the accidents that have resulted in them.
saaby93 said:
I had a feeling you were going to come back with that, I nearly mentioned it but held off
This is good
improved sighting at over 1,100 crossings
fitted LED road traffic lights at 500 crossings, significantly improving their brightness
introduced new technology to better inform users of a second train approaching the crossing in quick succession to the first
repositioned over 250 crossing phones into safe areas for users
This may not be so good
closed 1,100 level crossings
It would be interesting to go through those now and see how many could be reopened subject to above
Closing level crossings entirely removes the road/rail interface, removing the risk of accidental or intentional abuse and the consequences that follow. This is good
improved sighting at over 1,100 crossings
fitted LED road traffic lights at 500 crossings, significantly improving their brightness
introduced new technology to better inform users of a second train approaching the crossing in quick succession to the first
repositioned over 250 crossing phones into safe areas for users
This may not be so good
closed 1,100 level crossings
It would be interesting to go through those now and see how many could be reopened subject to above
What exactly would they be reopened subject to? The closed crossings would have been considered for improvement but likely deemed too high risk so a closure applied for, with an alternative crossing (footbridge or tunnel) installed.
saaby93 said:
Nik da Greek said:
Nope, I'm done. Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience
One of the biggest game changers in the rail industry was at SN109https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladbroke_Grove_rail_...
two things were known
Trains were supposed to stop at red lights there.
Trains were often not stopping there
Despite it being known that trains were not stopping, nothing was changed - it was obviously the drivers fault
Until one of the worst rail 'accidents' occurred.
If so many drivers were getting it wrong maybe it wasnt the drivers fault
What was it about SN109 that drivers were missing it?
If you had bothered to read the Wilipedia page you linked to, let alone read the full report, you would have seen that the primary cause oif the incident was a badly-sited signal, coupled with the error of an inexperienced driver who paid the ultimate penalty for that error. That answers your question in the final line of your post.
" Trains were often not stopping there" - read the Wiki page you linked to - 8 incidents.
" Despite it being known that trains were not stopping, nothing was changed" Signals Passed At Danger (SPADs) are taken very seriously by railway management. Drivers have been known to get the DCM (Don't come Monday) for doing it. In 2000 signalling was the responsibiliy of Railtrack, and you have already been told on this thread about the "shortcomings" (to put it mildly) of that for-profit organisation. The Wiki page you linked to tells you all of that as well... As I understand it, sighting for this signal and others in the area was improved umpteen years ago. Therefore it has, as I said above, no relevance whatsoever to level crossings in general and Barns Green in particular.
In another of your posts on this thread you mentioned barriers being down for 10minutes. I would be very surprised indeed if you could find a single example of barriers down for 10 minutes anywhere in the country (note - not "it seemed like 10 minutes" but "it was 10 minutes." The "worst" in my experience is at Brockenhurst over the Lymington Road, and even there I doubt that it is down for more than minutes,
sparks85 said:
It's hard to believe but that was nearly 20 years ago, pre-Network Rail era - which is relevant for reasons I previously explained. The industry has moved on a long way, the seriousness of safety has increased tenfold since then and as I have explained (numerous times) the improvements necessary are being rolled out across the country.
It was refreshing to see some of the RAIB reports come out on a similar basis to AAIB reportsHowever it wasnt so good to hear whoever it was say 'the only safe crossing is a closed crossing'
They could have said 'the only safe train is a stopped train'
Or in air terms 'the only safe plane, is one that doesn't leave the ground'
rs1952 said:
This thread is about an incident on a level crossing at Barns Green and nothing to do with the Ladbroke Grove crash, and the fact that you have brought it up, presumably thinking it to be related, unfortunately finally proves to me your ignorance of the subject you are talking about. You had a partial ally in me until then
If you had bothered to read the Wilipedia page you linked to, let alone read the full report, you would have seen that the primary cause oif the incident was a badly-sited signal, coupled with the error of an inexperienced driver who paid the ultimate penalty for that error. That answers your question in the final line of your post.
" Trains were often not stopping there" - read the Wiki page you linked to - 8 incidents.
" Despite it being known that trains were not stopping, nothing was changed" Signals Passed At Danger (SPADs) are taken very seriously by railway management. Drivers have been known to get the DCM (Don't come Monday) for doing it. In 2000 signalling was the responsibiliy of Railtrack, and you have already been told on this thread about the "shortcomings" (to put it mildly) of that for-profit organisation. The Wiki page you linked to tells you all of that as well... As I understand it, sighting for this signal and others in the area was improved umpteen years ago. Therefore it has, as I said above, no relevance whatsoever to level crossings in general and Barns Green in particular.
yeah I did read it all, but didnt need to post the whole thing as I'd linked it.If you had bothered to read the Wilipedia page you linked to, let alone read the full report, you would have seen that the primary cause oif the incident was a badly-sited signal, coupled with the error of an inexperienced driver who paid the ultimate penalty for that error. That answers your question in the final line of your post.
" Trains were often not stopping there" - read the Wiki page you linked to - 8 incidents.
" Despite it being known that trains were not stopping, nothing was changed" Signals Passed At Danger (SPADs) are taken very seriously by railway management. Drivers have been known to get the DCM (Don't come Monday) for doing it. In 2000 signalling was the responsibiliy of Railtrack, and you have already been told on this thread about the "shortcomings" (to put it mildly) of that for-profit organisation. The Wiki page you linked to tells you all of that as well... As I understand it, sighting for this signal and others in the area was improved umpteen years ago. Therefore it has, as I said above, no relevance whatsoever to level crossings in general and Barns Green in particular.
Up until the crash, the assumption was it was each drivers fault
Afterwards it was all the things listed including the location of the signal
And I agree 8 doesn't normally equate to 'often' but when the desired number is zero it gave something to look back on.
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 27th February 20:24
saaby93 said:
sparks85 said:
It's hard to believe but that was nearly 20 years ago, pre-Network Rail era - which is relevant for reasons I previously explained. The industry has moved on a long way, the seriousness of safety has increased tenfold since then and as I have explained (numerous times) the improvements necessary are being rolled out across the country.
It was refreshing to see some of the RAIB reports come out on a similar basis to AAIB reportsHowever it wasnt so good to hear whoever it was say 'the only safe crossing is a closed crossing'
They could have said 'the only safe train is a stopped train'
Or in air terms 'the only safe plane, is one that doesn't leave the ground'
Extrapolating from this logic, we might as well stop travelling, leaving the house, using electricity etc as it's safe all around.
Crossings need to be idiot proofed, simple as that. People won't harm themselves if you don't give them the facility or opportunity to do so.
After six pages of debate, you really are proving exactly why the rail industry needs to protect the general public from themselves.
sparks85 said:
By your logic, which is becoming tiresome, it would be better to leave the crossing open and stop trains running.
Extrapolating from this logic, we might as well stop travelling, leaving the house, using electricity etc as it's safe all around.
Crossings need to be idiot proofed, simple as that. People won't harm themselves if you don't give them the facility or opportunity to do so.
After six pages of debate, you really are proving exactly why the rail industry needs to protect the general public from themselves.
No youre saying things I havent said, then arguing against them as if i haveExtrapolating from this logic, we might as well stop travelling, leaving the house, using electricity etc as it's safe all around.
Crossings need to be idiot proofed, simple as that. People won't harm themselves if you don't give them the facility or opportunity to do so.
After six pages of debate, you really are proving exactly why the rail industry needs to protect the general public from themselves.
So no it's not my logic
Have you seen the Cathy Jordan video?
saaby93 said:
sparks85 said:
By your logic, which is becoming tiresome, it would be better to leave the crossing open and stop trains running.
Extrapolating from this logic, we might as well stop travelling, leaving the house, using electricity etc as it's safe all around.
Crossings need to be idiot proofed, simple as that. People won't harm themselves if you don't give them the facility or opportunity to do so.
After six pages of debate, you really are proving exactly why the rail industry needs to protect the general public from themselves.
No youre saying things I havent said, then arguing against them as if i haveExtrapolating from this logic, we might as well stop travelling, leaving the house, using electricity etc as it's safe all around.
Crossings need to be idiot proofed, simple as that. People won't harm themselves if you don't give them the facility or opportunity to do so.
After six pages of debate, you really are proving exactly why the rail industry needs to protect the general public from themselves.
So no it's not my logic
Have you seen the Cathy Jordan video?
I have no idea who Cathy Jordan is. If she is in one of those linked YouTube videos then some of the suggestions posed in them are literally the opposite of what needs to be done. A little knowledge appears to be a dangerous thing.
sparks85 said:
I have no idea who Cathy Jordan is.
It's had some press in some placeshttps://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The opening post says most it, if you can be bothered
It's about someone trying to say someone else has said something they havent.
saaby93 said:
sparks85 said:
I have no idea who Cathy Jordan is.
It's had some press in some placeshttps://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The opening post says most it, if you can be bothered
It's about someone trying to say someone else has said something they havent.
saaby93 said:
She's one half, Jordan Pertersen is the other
She seems to be convinced he's said various things to which he has to keep saying no I didnt
Or it might be she's doing it to find out what he really means
Anyway, are we way off topic now
Well I'm glad we cleared that up. Might I make the suggestion that in future you are clearer about the point you are trying to make. If it was just me that didn't understand that would be my fault, but most of the thread contributers on here have taken issue with your logic and suggestions. Either we are all wrong or you aren't explaining yourself properly.She seems to be convinced he's said various things to which he has to keep saying no I didnt
Or it might be she's doing it to find out what he really means
Anyway, are we way off topic now
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff