Level crossing stupidity...

[phil-b259]

Phones are gradually being provided at many more crossings, but there is still some way to go.

 

One thing to remember is that once a crossing phone is provided then it becomes a safety critical signalling asset - one that that not only has an ongoing maintenance cost, and significant implications to train running if it goes wrong, but may well have implications with regard to the signallers workload. Distraction or overlooking things due to telephone calls have feature in a number of near misses / accidents in the recent past - the fatal incident in Morton on Lug where a set of crossing barriers were raised before the train had traversed the crossing and causing a innocent motorists car to be struck at high speed shows just what a menace too many phone calls can be*.

 

That means ANY telephone provided by the railway for use by the public at a level crossing:-

 

MUST have a direct, always present connection to the supervising signal box telephone concentrator at the signal box with the ability to halt trains via signals (even if they are several miles back from said crossing)

 

ANY problems with the telephone (which could include things as simple as a user not putting it back on its cradle properly) must be immediately detected and the signaller MUST immediately caution all trains across said crossing until:-

 

(i) The crossing is secured out of use (eg. padlocking the gates shut so they cannot be opened - although this may not be good enough if the crossing is assessed as being a busy one and there is a danger of the public simply clambering over the locked gates)

(ii) A railway employee with a alternative method of contacting the supervising signal box is confirmed to be on site (e.g. a MOM with a working mobile)

(iii) The S&T or Telecoms departments have attended the phone (or telecoms equipment) and have fixed the fault - though obviously if it is simply the handset not being replaced correctly then the MOM can do this when they arrive on site.

 

* Of course upgrading the signalling / barrier controls so as to add approch locking would have prevented it - but that doesn't come cheap. Thus its entirely possible that while installing one extra set of crossing phones is cheep that one extra phone may tip the balance in terms of signallers workload and then force much more expensive alterations to be made elsewhere.

Edited June 22, 2017 by phil-b259

[leopardml2341]

So you disagree with me that there is no single answer to reducing risk at level crossings an then disagree with your own answer. Which is why did not use the term elimination.

I'm guessing that 'an' should actually read 'and' (or at least an') but I'm having difficulty determining what word should be between 'why' and 'did' in your second sentence.

[Coryton]

 

* Of course upgrading the signalling / barrier controls so as to add approch locking would have prevented it - but that doesn't come cheap. Thus its entirely possible that while installing one extra set of crossing phones is cheep that one extra phone may tip the balance in terms of signallers workload and then force much more expensive alterations to be made elsewhere.

 

And if there is an accident, the media will point out that the cost to have increased safety at that one crossing is fairly modest, rather than looking at the cost of doing this at all the crossings that the accident could have happened at.

 

Hindsight is wonderful.

[Southernman46]

deleted - I was talking rubbish (again !)

Edited June 23, 2017 by Southernman46

[jim.snowdon]

Many years ago I worked in a well-known South Eastern town. Near my office was a level crossing, worked by a bloke in a hut, with an incredibly frequent train service. One every half hour in both directions, plus goods trains, engineers trains, and rush hour extras. The whole area was completely flat, and to replace the crossing with a bridge or subway would cost an absolute mint, as well as involving (I should imagine) the compulsory purchase and demolition of some very nice houses.

 

I don't suppose it's the only crossing of its kind (indeed there was another one a quarter of a mile down the road for starters). I dare say they are both automatic barrier jobs by now. Unless we strike gold deposits or a few really good oilfields, I suspect it will literally take generations before all these crossings are eliminated.

From a practical perspective, level crossings will never be eliminated, simply because doing so (or attempting to do so) is disproportionately expensive in relation to the benefit gained. There are inevitably instances where crossings can be eliminated by combination with others, or where the cost of doing so is reasonable compared to the benefit, eg conflicts between high levels of train and road traffic, but the greater part of what can be achieved with crossing elimination is the low hanging fruit of redundant or severely under-used foot and accommodation crossings.

 

Jim

[Poggy1165]

It is often said "you can't put a value on human life."

 

However, this is what we, as a society, do all the time. You could spend limitless billions on the railways, and perhaps save some lives. But the same money, invested in road safety, public buildings, or simply the National Health Service, might be shown to save even more lives. So unless and until we find the secret of infinite resources, there will always be calculations made, and some risks will be accepted.

 

That doesn't mean, of course, that a cavalier attitude to safety, as espoused by certain 19th century railways directors (hello, Sir Edward!), should ever be accepted.

[ejstubbs]

It is often said "you can't put a value on human life."

 

Nonetheless, it is done on a regular basis in certain disciplines:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/

[Gary H]

Some more level crossing madness but this time, with a twist!

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37e_1501230887

[101]

Some more level crossing madness but this time, with a twist!

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37e_1501230887

Brilliant - that's the best one yet

[F-UnitMad]

Some more level crossing madness but this time, with a twist!

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37e_1501230887

Another lorry driver reinforces the Stereotype!! Prat. Edited July 31, 2017 by F-UnitMad

[relaxinghobby]

Look on the bright side. At least the driver had his load tied down and secured properly.

[MarkC]

Regarding the issues with telephones not being replaced in their cradles, wouldn't it be better to have an intercom-type arrangement, with a simple call button? 

[Colin_McLeod]

Some more level crossing madness but this time, with a twist!

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37e_1501230887

To be fair to the truck driver I think there should have been flat wagons under the jib (or gantry or whatever it is). Part of the train was overhanging the road and may not have been obvious beyond the end of the train. The "madness" in this case is with the railway IMO. Edited August 1, 2017 by Colin_McLeod

[Colin_McLeod]

Another lorry driver reinforces the Stereotype!! Prat.

Disagree. See post 2016.

[beast66606]

To be fair to the truck driver I think there should have been flat wagons under the jib (or gantry or whatever it is). Part of the train was overhanging the road and may not have been obvious beyond the end of the train. The "madness" in this case is with the railway IMO.

 

Bit of both - yes the overhang was bad but the truck was already too close to the railway and looked to be trying to get a flyer as the last wagon was just clear otherwise the driver would have seen the overhang.

[HitchinLoco]

How did the train stop so quick???

 

[Titan]

I can't see how the braking system or the driver of the train could react so quick, the driver of the train must have intended to stop where he did prior to the collision occurring, indeed it would appear that the train would have stopped with the crane overhanging the crossing in any case without the collision...

[PatB]

Whilst I agree that the overhang shouldn't really have been there, it wasn't exactly invisible.

[Colin_McLeod]

How did the train stop so quick???

DCC circuit breaker kicked in.

[petethemole]

The train starts to slow down before the truck reaches it. The truck never actually comes to a stop but slows to a crawl, then picks up speed as the big red thing crosses the road. the driver then slows down just before the impact. I think he had expected the train to continue at the same speed and realised his mistake too late. Still a case of impatience! The structures on the right including what appears to be a loading gauge suggests the presence of a railway facility such as a yard.

[petethemole]

Which indeed it does. My attempts to get the Google map into a link failed so here's a (low res) screenshot.

 

 

 

The level crossing is at the bottom between the bus stops.

Edited August 1, 2017 by petethemole

[ejstubbs]

Nearly a very nasty incident in Poland:

 

http://www.independent.ie/videos/have-you-seen/watch-car-ploughs-through-levelcrossing-and-misses-oncoming-train-my-inches-36018076.html

 

You can see in the view from behind the car (second half of the video) that the train did clip it - there's a sizable dent in the tailgate where there wasn't one before the train passed.

 

You have to wonder what the passengers said to the driver before walking away...

[kevinlms]

Nearly a very nasty incident in Poland:

 

http://www.independent.ie/videos/have-you-seen/watch-car-ploughs-through-levelcrossing-and-misses-oncoming-train-my-inches-36018076.html

 

You can see in the view from behind the car (second half of the video) that the train did clip it - there's a sizable dent in the tailgate where there wasn't one before the train passed.

 

You have to wonder what the passengers said to the driver before walking away...

Goes to show that the 2nd set of barriers on the departure side, has zero effect.

[Gary H]

Nearly a very nasty incident in Poland:

 

http://www.independent.ie/videos/have-you-seen/watch-car-ploughs-through-levelcrossing-and-misses-oncoming-train-my-inches-36018076.html

 

You can see in the view from behind the car (second half of the video) that the train did clip it - there's a sizable dent in the tailgate where there wasn't one before the train passed.

 

You have to wonder what the passengers said to the driver before walking away...

A split second from certain death!

I wonder how that conversation went?

[PhilJ W]

A split second from certain death!

I wonder how that conversation went?

:stinker: :stinker: