level crossing on railway property

[71000]

Y

Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000

[Gordon A]

Exeter St Davids had a road crossing that cut right across the yard.

The main lines were gated and controlled by the box.

Access across the goods yard was not. You just had to be very aware when crossing.

 

Gordon A

[ColHut]

Your original post uses the terms "siding" and "public access" across "railway land".  A siding is therefore a "NON Running line" not requiring signalling. The public access is via railway owned land such as a goods yard (reference your cows and sheep). No gates therefore necessary as in hundreds of goods yards where road vehicles both railway and private ones could often drive across numerous "paved" in sidings for purposes of delivery. The railway companies were only oblidged to fence and gate their land as a legal reference to their exact boundaries. And technically under some ancient old law close and lock these gates (at the entrance to the goods yard) for at least ONE day a year, to assert their legal ownership of said land, or risk loosing possession. We are of course going back to the legal system of the 1930's !

 

Occupation crossings are a totally different situation. This is a situation where a private road, or a crossing between fields has to cross a "Running line" signalled by whatever railway signalling system was is in use on that line. In such instances gates were necessary on both sides, because when a train is signalled to proceed is had under British law right off way and priority over both pedestrians and vehicles, simply because the laws of physics mean the train will be unable to stop in time to avoid an accident. Such "Occupation crossings" therefore had to have some sort of communication with the relevant signalbox. The person or vehicle wishing to cross had to contact the box to ask for permission to open the gates and make the crossing and then close the gates behind them, and recommunicate with the signalman that the gates had been re-closed. The signalman would give the "user" permission as and when he the signalman was sure it was safe to do so. If the signalman could not ascertain whether the gates had been closed afterwards. He was supposed to stop and warn any train of the possibility of a problem and only allow the train to proceed under caution. The signalman might also request the driver to contact him if the driver noted either gate left in the open position. In practice it was known that many farmers for example left the gates wide open because for example, they were harvesting, and had numerous slow moving tractors and trailers going to and fro. Farmers not understanding railway safety rules therefore often compromised the safety regulations, and trains sometimes hit such obsticles in such circumstances. The Farmer would of course find himself in big trouble and possibly be jailed for such infringements.

 

Public road crossings have required a minimum of safety signage where crossing very lightly used lines. Trains running over un-gated level crossings have therefore to be at caution and officially stop and proceed over such crossings, when it is clearly safe to do so. Depending on local circumstances it was sometimes required for the train guard or even the Fireman to handsignal road traffic before the train crossed (in 1930). More recent laws technically prevent a member of traincrew from controlling road traffic under the law, unless a Policeman first stops the road traffic and then hands the job of control over. In other words a scenario not like to happen. As automatic level crossing systems were not basically available in 1930, virtually all road crossings therefore required the presence of a mechanical signalbox, to both supervise the crossing, open and close the gates and control the railway signals. The railway signals had to be interlocked with the gates. Hence it was quite usual to find many signalboxes named as "xxx Crossingbox" and NOT necessarily even a "Block Post". Such boxes also required a minimum of a distant and home signal for each running line and, or direction of trains.  

 

Official Foot crossings were in 1930 usually just attended by a cast iron sign, warning people to "Stop look and listen" before crossing. Known unofficial crossing points often had a "Warning, penalty for trespass on railway land .....30 shillings". Or similar !

 

If people or vehicles crossed a railway at any other point you first took your life in your hands, as trains would not know in advance to "whistle" their approach. If caught you also stood the possibility of being jailed depending on the circumstances !

 

The Duke 71000

 

Not sure I follow the direction of all the above, and thanks for your thoughts on the original post, but the reference I placed was just for interest to the styles of crossing gates used not to the manner of working. These were all controlled by crossing keepers. The particular cases had block instruments and bells warning of arriving trains.

 

regards

[The Stationmaster]

Your original post uses the terms "siding" and "public access" across "railway land".  A siding is therefore a "NON Running line" not requiring signalling. The public access is via railway owned land such as a goods yard (reference your cows and sheep). No gates therefore necessary as in hundreds of goods yards where road vehicles both railway and private ones could often drive across numerous "paved" in sidings for purposes of delivery. The railway companies were only oblidged to fence and gate their land as a legal reference to their exact boundaries. And technically under some ancient old law close and lock these gates (at the entrance to the goods yard) for at least ONE day a year, to assert their legal ownership of said land, or risk loosing possession. We are of course going back to the legal system of the 1930's !

 

Occupation crossings are a totally different situation. This is a situation where a private road, or a crossing between fields has to cross a "Running line" signalled by whatever railway signalling system was is in use on that line. In such instances gates were necessary on both sides, because when a train is signalled to proceed is had under British law right off way and priority over both pedestrians and vehicles, simply because the laws of physics mean the train will be unable to stop in time to avoid an accident. Such "Occupation crossings" therefore had to have some sort of communication with the relevant signalbox. The person or vehicle wishing to cross had to contact the box to ask for permission to open the gates and make the crossing and then close the gates behind them, and recommunicate with the signalman that the gates had been re-closed. The signalman would give the "user" permission as and when he the signalman was sure it was safe to do so. If the signalman could not ascertain whether the gates had been closed afterwards. He was supposed to stop and warn any train of the possibility of a problem and only allow the train to proceed under caution. The signalman might also request the driver to contact him if the driver noted either gate left in the open position. In practice it was known that many farmers for example left the gates wide open because for example, they were harvesting, and had numerous slow moving tractors and trailers going to and fro. Farmers not understanding railway safety rules therefore often compromised the safety regulations, and trains sometimes hit such obsticles in such circumstances. The Farmer would of course find himself in big trouble and possibly be jailed for such infringements.

 

Public road crossings have required a minimum of safety signage where crossing very lightly used lines. Trains running over un-gated level crossings have therefore to be at caution and officially stop and proceed over such crossings, when it is clearly safe to do so. Depending on local circumstances it was sometimes required for the train guard or even the Fireman to handsignal road traffic before the train crossed (in 1930). More recent laws technically prevent a member of traincrew from controlling road traffic under the law, unless a Policeman first stops the road traffic and then hands the job of control over. In other words a scenario not like to happen. As automatic level crossing systems were not basically available in 1930, virtually all road crossings therefore required the presence of a mechanical signalbox, to both supervise the crossing, open and close the gates and control the railway signals. The railway signals had to be interlocked with the gates. Hence it was quite usual to find many signalboxes named as "xxx Crossingbox" and NOT necessarily even a "Block Post". Such boxes also required a minimum of a distant and home signal for each running line and, or direction of trains.  

 

Official Foot crossings were in 1930 usually just attended by a cast iron sign, warning people to "Stop look and listen" before crossing. Known unofficial crossing points often had a "Warning, penalty for trespass on railway land .....30 shillings". Or similar !

 

If people or vehicles crossed a railway at any other point you first took your life in your hands, as trains would not know in advance to "whistle" their approach. If caught you also stood the possibility of being jailed depending on the circumstances !

 

The Duke 71000       

 

It is only in relatively recent years that communication with a signalbox has been provided at some occupation and accommodation crossings.  For many years the overwhelmingly vast majority of such crossings, even on main lines, had no form of communication with the railway and at one which was on my patch in the mid 1970s the farmer (a  rather sensible sort) used the Post Office/NBT phone in the farmhouse to contact our signalbox, which oddly also happened to have such a 'phone.

 

As far as level crossing operated by local ground frames are concerned on lower speed lines the only signal required was a (worked) Distant Signal - the red target on the crossing gates being quite legitimately acceptable as thh protecting stop signal for the crossing.

[Edwin_m]

I have been puzzled by the gates at the end of Burnham's excursion platform. Unless they were relics of a fuller set, I can only assume that they could be shut across the line to stop pedestrian access into the station, although they don't seem wide enough, and there don't seem to have been any corresponding ones across the other line.

B&H10 4P4F 0-6-0 44411 arriving at Burnham SDJR May 62.jpg

I think this could have been just a fixed gate or perhaps opened only for a particularly large road vehicle.  The purpose would be to prevent anyone who is crossing the front of the shed from coming round a blind corner straight into the path of a train.  By forcing people to go a bit further from the wall they have a better view of any approaching train. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Edwin_m

[Pacific231G]

 

 

Occupation crossings are a totally different situation. This is a situation where a private road, or a crossing between fields has to cross a "Running line" signalled by whatever railway signalling system was is in use on that line. In such instances gates were necessary on both sides, because when a train is signalled to proceed is had under British law right off way and priority over both pedestrians and vehicles, simply because the laws of physics mean the train will be unable to stop in time to avoid an accident. Such "Occupation crossings" therefore had to have some sort of communication with the relevant signalbox. The person or vehicle wishing to cross had to contact the box to ask for permission to open the gates and make the crossing and then close the gates behind them, and recommunicate with the signalman that the gates had been re-closed. The signalman would give the "user" permission as and when he the signalman was sure it was safe to do so. If the signalman could not ascertain whether the gates had been closed afterwards. He was supposed to stop and warn any train of the possibility of a problem and only allow the train to proceed under caution. The signalman might also request the driver to contact him if the driver noted either gate left in the open position. In practice it was known that many farmers for example left the gates wide open because for example, they were harvesting, and had numerous slow moving tractors and trailers going to and fro. Farmers not understanding railway safety rules therefore often compromised the safety regulations, and trains sometimes hit such obsticles in such circumstances. The Farmer would of course find himself in big trouble and possibly be jailed for such infringements.

 

 

That's not necessarily true for occupation crossings. As a child I used to stay on a relative's hill farm between Brecon and Cradoc in S. Wales that had land on both sides of the Merthy and Brecon railway. There was a gated occupation crossing with the gates opening away from track and I certainly don't recall any telephone to communicate with the nearest signalbox.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Pacific231G

[71000]

Exeter St Davids had a road crossing that cut right across the yard.

The main lines were gated and controlled by the box.

Access across the goods yard was not. You just had to be very aware when crossing.

 

Gordon A

G

Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000

[71000]

That's not necessarily true for occupation crossings. As a child I used to stay on a relative's hill farm between Brecon and Cradoc in S. Wales that had land on both sides of the Merthy and Brecon railway. There was a gated occupation crossing with the gates opening away from track and I certainly don't recall any telephone to communicate with the nearest signalbox.

P

Edited April 7, 2018 by 71000

[Nearholmer]

Your Duke-ness,

 

I'm still not at all convinced by what you say about occupation crossings.

 

They'd existed for donkeys years before GPO phones became common, and even after such phones were common I don't believe that farmers (or other "occupiers") were under any obligation to phone anybody before crossing the line.

 

There were several on the stretch between the two stations nearest where I grew up, and the routine was for the farmer to open both gates, take a good look in both directions ( looking at the signals where they were visible), then "go for it". Sometimes it was a tractor and trailer, sometimes cattle, and the latter were a cause for nervousness all round, in case they bolted down the track; there would usually be three people to herd them across, one either side, and one at the back.

 

There was (still is actually) one farm crossing a bit further along, which had more "highway style" gates (later miniature AHB), operated by the user, but only after a call the the 'box (railway phone provided) and operation of "release". I think this set-up was provided at railway expense because sighting-distance was short (curves and trees), and it was a busy-ish crossing giving access to the house and farmyard,so that farm vehicles created a risk to trains. I know of another one like that on a private residential road.

 

Kevin

Edited June 28, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Pacific231G]

Pacific 231G (a rather large locomotive if I may say so !)

 

A magnificent locomotive if I may say so. Sadly, my avatar 231G558 was the sole Etat Pacific from several hundred to survive and that was only because of its humble role as a stationary boiler at Dieppe Maritime when its sisters were all being cut up.

 

The railway were not in the habit of providing telephones at occupation crossings. Farmers that used such crossings, being the owner of adjacent land, had to inform the railway of their desire to use such a crossing. The Railway was obliged to give such owners (singular or plural) the relevant method of communicating such a desire. This was often the GPO telephone number of the signalbox covering the relevant section of line. The signalman would when contacted by such an owner give safe advice as to when the crossing could be used, based on the Signalmans knowledge of the whereabouts of any trains, or their absence.

 

I suspect that my relative's rather isolated farm was closer to the nearest signal box than to a GPO telephone!. He may have contacted the railway before moving flocks of sheep, if indeed they went that way, for anything else it was just a matter of very careful listening more than looking but you could hear a train coming from at least five minutes away and probably more like ten given the number of crossings they whistled for. I did even see him putting his ear to the rail to listen for a train from much further away though that may have just been to impress his young relative. Whatever the rules may have been that was the reality and a lot of his family worked on the railway locally  . 

 

Further, the Farmer, as the person responsible for both the gates (the farmer owned and maintained them normally) and what was to cross the line. Was also supposed to keep such gates padlocked, when not in use, to prevent unauthorised persons from using such a crossing. This being one of the reasons such crossings were referred too as "Occupation crossings". i.e. The owner of the adjacent land to the railway was the "Ocuppier".

 

I'm pretty sure they weren't padlocked but there was no public access either.

 

         

Edited June 28, 2017 by Pacific231G

[The Stationmaster]

Your Duke-ness,

 

I'm still not at all convinced by what you say about occupation crossings.

 

They'd existed for donkeys years before GPO phones became common, and even after such phones were common I don't believe that farmers (or other "occupiers") were under any obligation to phone anybody before crossing the line.

 

There were several on the stretch between the two stations nearest where I grew up, and the routine was for the farmer to open both gates, take a good look in both directions ( looking at the signals where they were visible), then "go for it". Sometimes it was a tractor and trailer, sometimes cattle, and the latter were a cause for nervousness all round, in case they bolted down the track; there would usually be three people to herd them across, one either side, and one at the back.

 

There was (still is actually) one farm crossing a bit further along, which had more "highway style" gates (later miniature AHB), operated by the user, but only after a call the the 'box (railway phone provided) and operation of "release". I think this set-up was provided at railway expense because sighting-distance was short (curves and trees), and it was a busy-ish crossing giving access to the house and farmyard,so that farm vehicles created a risk to trains. I know of another one like that on a private residential road.

 

Kevin

 

Spot on.  There was never in the past any requirement on the users of occupation or accommodation crossings to contact the railway before using the crossing and the only reason that has changed at some crossings (but not all) has been a consequence of incidents and more recently of anything identified during crossing risk assessments.  But the usual method was exactly as 'Nearholmer' has identified - open the gates on both sides, have a good look round, and listen carefully then cross.

 

On one of my past patches, back in the mid/late 1970s, we had in one part almost 70 miles of mainline and the list of accommodation and occupation crossings on that stretch of line ran to nearly two pages of foolscap (single line typed) and I think only one of the crossings had a 'phone/ a 'phone number for the landowner.  On another part of our patch we had 30 miles of mainline and until I managed, by various means, to put together a list of them we didn't even know how many such crossings we actually had and that was before we counted the branches - out of that lot one farmer (I mentioned previously) used his private 'phone to call a BT 'phone in one of our signalboxes before crossing with animals as he'd had several near misses (and one collision with cattle occurred after a 'phone call).

 

Where we had cases of suspected abuse - such as leaving gates open or crossing before opening the far side gate - the only way we could establish any details was to either go and keep watch or send BT Police to do so.  Nobody ever made 'phone calls because there were no 'phones and even if there had been they wouldn't have bothered to use them in the case of the worst offenders.

 

Before HSTs were introduced to the Bristol and South Wales routes on the Western there was a survey made of occupation and accommodation crossings and it was done by the simple expedient of walking the routes because no records existed apart from the original ones dating from the time the lines had been constructed and the only way of ascertaining if crossings not only still existed but were actually in use was to walk through and look at them.

[Compound2632]

But the usual method was exactly as 'Nearholmer' has identified - open the gates on both sides, have a good look round, and listen carefully then cross.

 

Trying to get my head round that one. Presumably you mean: open the gate on one side, walk across the line to open the gate on the other side, walk back across the line, then drive animals/vehicles/whatever across, walk back across to close the first gate, cross a fifth time to close the second gate?

 

I'd like to see that modelled...

Edited June 28, 2017 by Compound2632

[Nearholmer]

Indeed, all a bit of a faff, which is why farmers open one gate, park on the crossing, close first gate, open other gate ....... oh shuuugar!!

 

Weren't a number of fruit-pickers in a van killed exactly that way, a few years ago in Worcestershire?

 

K