Two killed at a crossing near Horsham

[saaby93]

Nik da Greek said:

Opinionated idiot is an idiot Ignores decades of relevant expertise being explained to him in terms even a cretin could grasp to propound gibberish theories.

Of course, it's Pistonheads. Because why let the real world get in the way of spouting ill-informed rubbish

No need to go that far. If youre in an industry its easy to keep things the same and the same type of thing continues happening.
How many pieces of kit do you know where the old game used to be stick a warning notice on it, if someone sticks their hand in there it's their fault. Nowadays youd accept some people might do that and design it differently
It's not rocket science, just needs thinking about it from the point of view of people using it.


We dont know what happened here although Hohohos given a view of events and is understandably upset about it.

It's unlikely the guys driven around the barrier unless somethings happened or been going on that's led him to believe that's the best thing to do. Find out what that sequence is, to try to prevent it happening again.

Edited by saaby93 on Monday 26th February 18:38

[48k]

sparks85 said:

saaby93 said:

sparks85 said:

If the process allowed every member of the public to call and check, rather than follow the barriers/lights, then you introduce the risk of people jumping the barriers/lights the next time, because they'd been given permission to go once and it must be ok to assume it is the same this time. How do you stop the flow of road traffic once the first car drives around?

No
If theyd been given permission once, because the system is dumb, the immediate thing to do is revise the system so no-one has to phone there again.
Over time there'll be no need to use the phones, unless the barrier really is broken

Edited by saaby93 on Monday 26th February 14:46

And just to follow this up, unfortunately I can't follow your logic here (forgive me as I don't align with your witty t-shirt picture). Playing Devils Advocate for a second to imagine your proposed system (which as Nik said, will not happen in a million years):

Let's imagine 3 cars pull up at an AHB where the barriers are down. A train passes but the barriers remain down. Driver 1 gets out and phones the Signaller. When the Signaller is free to talk - which can take some time, as he can't just drop everything he's doing - he permits Driver 1 to pass. Does Driver 2 then pull up to the stop line, get out, call the Signaller and seek permission to cross? He obviously can't just follow Driver 1, because the situation may have changed etc. So how do the queuing drivers know when it is no longer safe to cross?

Then moving onto behaviours and increasing risk - the next day, Driver 1 arrives at the same crossing with the barriers down. Do you really think he'll stop, get out, call the Signaller etc.. or just drive across because it's probably the same as yesterday... I mean, he got permission yesterday so it's probably going to be alright isn't it..?

AIUI even a police officer let a lone a railway signaller is not legally allowed to permit anyone to pass flashing red lights at a crossing. It's the key difference between steady red and flashing red lights - there are some circumstances where it is permissible to proceed past a steady red light but there are none where it is legal to pass flashing reds.

[Nik da Greek]

saaby93 said:

No need to go that far. If youre in an industry its easy to keep things the same and the same type of thing continues happening.
How many pieces of kit do you know where the old game used to be stick a warning notice on it, if someone sticks their hand in there it's their fault. Nowadays youd accept some people might do that and design it differently
It's not rocket science, just needs thinking about it from the point of view of people using it.

I was going to make a rather more intelligent and reasonable post on the matter, but then thought "why bother?" You're clearly not open to reason. It has already been pointed out that AHBs are an outmoded means of working that is gradually being supplanted by more modern ones as and when resources allow. But you chose to repeatedly ignore this and propose "solutions" that are clearly idiotic and when they are explained to you how idiotic they are by people with decades of experience working in the field you accuse them of being too intransigent and entrenched in the past to take on board your genius insights... even going so far as to resort to the most pathetic of internet warrior methodology by posting patronising memes that you can then claim "'s only a bit of fun, what, no sense of humour?" when in fact they're calculated to insult and belittle as much as possible

So, explain to us again why anyone would bother treating you with the courtesy that you consistently fail to extend to others?

[saaby93]

Nik da Greek said:

I was going to make a rather more intelligent and reasonable post on the matter, but then thought "why bother?" You're clearly not open to reason. It has already been pointed out that AHBs are an outmoded means of working that is gradually being supplanted by more modern ones as and when resources allow. But you chose to repeatedly ignore this and propose "solutions" that are clearly idiotic and when they are explained to you how idiotic they are by people with decades of experience working in the field you accuse them of being too intransigent and entrenched in the past to take on board your genius insights... even going so far as to resort to the most pathetic of internet warrior methodology by posting patronising memes that you can then claim "'s only a bit of fun, what, no sense of humour?" when in fact they're calculated to insult and belittle as much as possible

So, explain to us again why anyone would bother treating you with the courtesy that you consistently fail to extend to others?

I havent done or said any of that, but I dont need to have a go at you, so sounds like courtesy to me?
Have another look

[saaby93]

48k said:

AIUI even a police officer let a lone a railway signaller is not legally allowed to permit anyone to pass flashing red lights at a crossing. It's the key difference between steady red and flashing red lights - there are some circumstances where it is permissible to proceed past a steady red light but there are none where it is legal to pass flashing reds.

I have a feeling someone else posted that the other day
It means even if the machine is faulty it still cant be ignored
What about a police car with flashing red wigwags on the back, it used to mean stop,
but nowadays it can mean ' I'm parked up on the hard shoulder'

Isn't what we really need though is for the signaller either to tell the guy there's a train coming (and if the system is working by the time he's said it the train will be through) or to switch the blinking lights off and get the barrier back up.
If thats not possible cone the road off with 'faulty crossing'
Anyway thats all about running with the idea of having a big 'use the phone' sign

Edited by saaby93 on Monday 26th February 19:02

[sparks85]

saaby93 said:

No need to go that far. If youre in an industry its easy to keep things the same and the same type of thing continues happening.
How many pieces of kit do you know where the old game used to be stick a warning notice on it, if someone sticks their hand in there it's their fault. Nowadays youd accept some people might do that and design it differently
It's not rocket science, just needs thinking about it from the point of view of people using it.


We dont know what happened here although Hohohos given a view of events and is understandably upset about it.

It's unlikely the guys driven around the barrier unless somethings happened or been going on that's led him to believe that's the best thing to do. Find out what that sequence is, to try to prevent it happening again.

Edited by saaby93 on Monday 26th February 18:38

Sadly from the evidence emerging it sounds like the driver did exactly that - got impatient and drove around the barrier.

[sparks85]

48k said:

AIUI even a police officer let a lone a railway signaller is not legally allowed to permit anyone to pass flashing red lights at a crossing. It's the key difference between steady red and flashing red lights - there are some circumstances where it is permissible to proceed past a steady red light but there are none where it is legal to pass flashing reds.

Correct, but I was just playing hypotheticals to try to explain why this set up wouldn't work in terms of practicalities and behaviour.

[rs1952]

Nik da Greek said:

I was going to make a rather more intelligent and reasonable post on the matter, but then thought "why bother?" You're clearly not open to reason. It has already been pointed out that AHBs are an outmoded means of working that is gradually being supplanted by more modern ones as and when resources allow. But you chose to repeatedly ignore this and propose "solutions" that are clearly idiotic and when they are explained to you how idiotic they are by people with decades of experience working in the field you accuse them of being too intransigent and entrenched in the past to take on board your genius insights... even going so far as to resort to the most pathetic of internet warrior methodology by posting patronising memes that you can then claim "'s only a bit of fun, what, no sense of humour?" when in fact they're calculated to insult and belittle as much as possible

So, explain to us again why anyone would bother treating you with the courtesy that you consistently fail to extend to others?

Wandering off topic but perhaps pertinent to the situation, there are many walks of life where armchair critics think they know better than professionals - footballers and entertainers spring immediately to mind. Railways are similar - on a previous thread I recounted a conversation I had with one such armchair expert about derailments in general and Wootton Bassett in particular. He came out with the line - "I know what the railways need to do but the unions won't let them. They need to fit something so that if a train passes a red light then the brakes come on." Up until then he was blissfully unaware that the original Great Western Railway started fitting early versions of such devices in the 1930s - he came away from the conversation, shall we say, suitably re-educated...

In a way I can see where saaby is comming from (he got upset once when I used his real name in a post so I shall behave myself ). He sees a problem that we can all see and all know exists, but he doesn't take the practicalities into account when he puts forward his solutions. To be fair, he is not a railwayman and never has been so will not know about many of the practicalities, and therein lies the problem. Where the practical problems are pointed out to him he seems to dismiss them as "old school thinking" or "intransigence" or "man-maths" (even I got irritated by that one and it wasn't aimed at me ).

Saab old chim, you would do yourself a lot of good by listening to what those in the know and in the trade have to say, and not be so quick to dismiss them as dinosaurs.

You know, I have no interest in football whatsoever.but I've heard a lot of men in pubs talk like they could play it better than David Beckham. I wonder why they were never picked for the England team?

[sparks85]

saaby93 said:

Isn't what we really need though is for the signaller either to tell the guy there's a train coming (and if the system is working by the time he's said it the train will be through) or to switch the blinking lights off and get the barrier back up.
If thats not possible cone the road off with 'faulty crossing'
Anyway thats all about running with the idea of having a big 'use the phone' sign

Edited by saaby93 on Monday 26th February 19:02

The Signaller cannot control an AHB.

Even if he could, allowing humans to make decisions like this would massively increase the risk profile.

If a crossing has failed then it will fail safe with the barriers down. I assume the Signaller would notify trains in that section to pass at walking pace until the crossing was under local control. No need for cones.

[P5BNij]

Saaby, never underestimate the stupidity of some level crossing users... about eight years ago one of my colleagues was working a freight train over Desford AHB LC on the Leicester to Burton line, the barriers were down but this didn't stop the driver of a Transit van overtaking three vehicles which had stopped, driving round them and the barrier straight into the side of my mate's train when it was already half way over the crossing.

A couple of years later, further along the line at Bardon Hill, a local woman drove her car at speed straight through both full width barriers to try and beat the approaching freight train, the only reason she stopped was because part of one barrier was wedged under the front of her car.

About two years ago I was working a train over Desford Crossing myself, just as my cab was passing over it I looked down to my left and saw a small hatchback had hit the barrier and was reversing back with part of it resting on her bonnet. If she hadn't done so the chances are she probably wouldn't be here today and I'd have another fatality on my conscience.

Whatever reason or excuse any road user gives for ignoring the lights and barriers needs to be countered by education, it needs drumming into them that no matter how much the delay upsets them, once those lights start flashing you stop. I'm not saying that the Horsham incident was necessarily down to stupidity, but I'll await the report with interest.

Suffice to say, I hate level crossings.

Edited by P5BNij on Monday 26th February 19:33

Edited by P5BNij on Monday 26th February 19:35

Edited by P5BNij on Monday 26th February 19:35

[saaby93]

P5BNij said:

Saaby, never underestimate the stupidity of some level crossing users... about eight years ago one of my colleagues was working a freight train over Desford AHB LC on the Leicester to Burton line, the barriers were down but this didn't stop the driver of a Transit van overtaking three vehicles which had stopped, driving round them and the barrier straight into the side of my mate's train when it was already half way over the crossing.

A couple of years later, further along the line at Bardon Hill, a local woman drove her car at speed straight through both full width barriers to try and beat the approaching freight train, the only reason she stopped was because part of one barrier was wedged under the front of her car.

I think we all know of those and if the guy's come up to the crossing and gone through with it on wig wags then thats what there is.

However the type of thread weve discussed before are ones where usually a local has got used to the barrier staying down for too long. If he's used to a train coming through then nothing for 10 minutes, has he gone through this time because he needs to get to the football match and 'knows' there wont be a train for a while?

If it is that situation, the system has helped train him up to make the wrong decision.
It should be fixable by making sure the barrier isnt down for longer than a minute when it's not necessary - I think someone posted up the guidelines saying similar ( or as someone else said - make it more obvious to use the phone)
But we dont know if it's either of those - it'll come out in the reports.

Right who's going to read something into that I havent said

[P5BNij]

'Knowing' that a train isn't due for a while and reality are often two different things, they can't possibly know all freight or light engine movements and timings, some of which are booked but they can just as easily run early or late. Not all movements passenger or freight are published beforehand. I've been driving freights for almost sixteen years and 90% of the time we do not run to time for most of the journey.

There are only really two safe options with regard to level crossings, road users need to obey the rules, or the crossings should be replaced by bridges or underpasses, which isn't going to happen anytime soon, not on any grand scale anyway. Sadly, too many road users see the flashing lights as a challenge without thinking or caring about the consequences. We can go round and round as much as you like talking about each individual driver phoning the signalman, but it's not practical for every single location in the country and won't change the fact that the rules have to be obeyed.

[sparks85]

saaby93 said:

P5BNij said:

Saaby, never underestimate the stupidity of some level crossing users... about eight years ago one of my colleagues was working a freight train over Desford AHB LC on the Leicester to Burton line, the barriers were down but this didn't stop the driver of a Transit van overtaking three vehicles which had stopped, driving round them and the barrier straight into the side of my mate's train when it was already half way over the crossing.

A couple of years later, further along the line at Bardon Hill, a local woman drove her car at speed straight through both full width barriers to try and beat the approaching freight train, the only reason she stopped was because part of one barrier was wedged under the front of her car.

I think we all know of those and if the guy's come up to the crossing and gone through with it on wig wags then thats what there is.

However the type of thread weve discussed before are ones where usually a local has got used to the barrier staying down for too long. If he's used to a train coming through then nothing for 10 minutes, has he gone through this time because he needs to get to the football match and 'knows' there wont be a train for a while?

If it is that situation, the system has helped train him up to make the wrong decision.
It should be fixable by making sure the barrier isnt down for longer than a minute when it's not necessary - I think someone posted up the guidelines saying similar ( or as someone else said - make it more obvious to use the phone)
But we dont know if it's either of those - it'll come out in the reports.

Right who's going to read something into that I havent said

You are arguing that familiarisation with the system breeds a false sense of security, which is exactly what I was referring to when saying if members of the public abuse LX's, then the system isn't fit for purpose.

However, as I have explained several times, it is not physically possible to reduce the barrier down time with the current AHB set up. The strike in points are fixed and based upon the highest permissible line speed.

Money spent on making some kind of retrospective adjustments to the existing system might as well be spent on upgrading them instead, again for reasons I've outlined previously.

There is no case for any user to use the phone during normal operation. The phone is there for emergency purposes, not for the Signaller to act as a call centre.

[henrycrun]

Explanation here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2wx9CKIa9g

[saaby93]

henrycrun said:

Explanation here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2wx9CKIa9g

Thanks Henry
That's how they 'should' work Unfortunately it's not quite like that
There's more on some failure modes here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diXBBl0KuA4

and here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFRms1LgCVU

1:16



Until they work with what really happens, we're going to have repeats

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 27th February 08:15

[sparks85]

saaby93 said:

Until they work with what really happens, we're going to have repeats

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 27th February 08:15

Sigh.

[saaby93]

sparks85 said:

saaby93 said:

Until they work with what really happens, we're going to have repeats

Sigh.

Well at least we agree about the 'Sigh'
( and a few other things)
Take those flashing red wigwags
What you used to get on unbarriered corssings was an amber saying stop if you can safely
Then the red wigwags ( youd better stop) and the train comes through
When they added them to barriers what they shoud have done was amber as above
Then the red wig wags as the barriers come down

What theyve done is led people to treat the red wig wags as amber.
Unless they get to terms with working how people behave, these type of threads will keep popping up.

Wonder how long it will take until we hear why the guy thought it was a good idea to cross

[sparks85]

saaby93 said:

Well at least we agree about the 'Sigh'
( and a few other things)
Take those flashing red wigwags
What you used to get on unbarriered corssings was an amber saying stop if you can safely
Then the red wigwags ( youd better stop) and the train comes through
When they added them to barriers what they shoud have done was amber as above
Then the red wig wags as the barriers come down

What theyve done is led people to treat the red wig wags as amber.
Unless they get to terms with working how people behave, these type of threads will keep popping up.

Wonder how long it will take until we hear why the guy thought it was a good idea to cross

I hardly think adding an amber aspect to the road traffic lights would deter people from driving around the half barriers.

You use of the word "they" makes me laugh, I have been part of "they" i.e (NR) and you seem to be intent on any explanation I put forward.

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.

[Nik da Greek]

Jesus Christ, are you still chuntering on

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?

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?

[saaby93]

sparks85 said:

I hardly think adding an amber aspect to the road traffic lights would deter people from driving around the half barriers.

Didnt say they would - it was about the Network rail van ( and everyone else) thinking it's ok to go through red wigwags now

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?