Vertical wigwags at level crossings

[Jon_Eng]

I noticed this picture of what seem to be vertical wigwags on Wikipedia, reportedly between Church Stretton and Hereford on the Welsh Marches line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marshbrook_-_geograph.org.uk_-_279032.jpg). I have seen something very similar on the AHB at Warden, between Haydon Bridge and Hexham on the Tyne valley line.

 

I presume that it's a vertical wigwag, so how would it work when activated?; would it be a red/yellow/red set that behaves like a normal level crossing light when activated; is it used when sight lines on approach roads are restricted?

[Richard E]

Interesting because the lights from the other direction are the normal rectangular 2 over 1 set up. So is the set on the right hand side of the road, it is only those on the left of the road that appear in the traffic light style. Not seen this anywhere else.

[Glorious NSE]

I think it's used because with the standard setup two of the three lights would be hidden behind the pub - I think there are similar "low clearance" ones at Lincoln as well?

[TheSignalEngineer]

This is a set for a restricted clearance at Furness Vale. The other three are normal size.

[Jon_Eng]

Thanks for the answers so far.

 

Did the format for the low-clearance version change recently?

 

I've found versions on the geograph.org.uk website of the same levelˆˆg on the Tyne Valley line

"before" (2006)

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1564956

 

"after" (2010)

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2069316

 

Does anyone know how/why the changeover happened?

 

Thanks in advance

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Does anyone know how/why the changeover happened?

I assume it would be to make things more standard, in a 'health & safety' style of way- there was a big advertising campaign recently about the 'dangers' of level crossings. Being very cynical I might even suggest that an accident (might of allegedly) occured at one of the sites with the old style lights - where the old style of light might allegedly be to blame rather than (car) driver error?

[Oldddudders]

I think it might be in connection with that minor road that comes in next to the pub, down from Minton? Is it about visibility to drivers from that direction? The road coming from behind the camera is pretty wiggly, too. It makes a good cut-through from the Welsh side if you want to avoid the Long Mynd, so that implies heavy and long loads might prefer it.

 

Have sunk a few pints in the pub. Also recall the double bend on the A49 there. About 30 years ago I was driving south towards Craven Arms when King George V suddenly appeared going north in full-steam-ahead mode. A quick U-turn and back through those bends, pedal to the metal, in my already-rusting twin-cam Lancia Beta. KGV actually stopped at Stretton for water. That stretch of line was also my first sighting of a solar-powered signal, presumably just battery charging, possibly on Marshbrook's Up Distant.

 

EDIT. Deb, who has dined there more recently than me, points out the food in pub is excellent!

[TheSignalEngineer]

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 lay down the format of the lights. The vertical configuration is not permitted for level crossings. For normal use the sign is Diagram 3014. In specially authorised circumstances the narrow sign to Diagram 3015 can be used.

[Welly]

I think it's used because with the standard setup two of the three lights would be hidden behind the pub - I think there are similar "low clearance" ones at Lincoln as well?

There used to be vertical ones at Lincoln on the side of the narrow driveway between the railway tracks and the shop units south of the High Street LC. They have since been replaced by standard ones mounted on the opposite side of the road.

[TheSignalEngineer]

This is the DfT Traffic Advisory Leaflet on the use of Wig-Wag Signals TAL0108

[stewartingram]

One of the crossings at Three Horse Shoes (March-Peterborough) has a vertical on one side due to restricted clearance. I'm on shift in London until Tues so can't provide a pic, can anyone else?

[TheSignalEngineer]

One of the crossings at Three Horse Shoes (March-Peterborough) has a vertical on one side due to restricted clearance. I'm on shift in London until Tues so can't provide a pic, can anyone else?

The crossing on the March side of Three Horse Shoes is a very acute angle and the lights between the road and railway at each side are the correct restricted clearance ones to Diagram 3015, as shown in my picture of Furness Vale above. They can be seen on Google Earth.

 

There is a subtle difference in law between the Diagram 3014 / 3015 layout and the vertical Diagram 3000 used for normal traffic lights. Diagram 3000 lights can be legally passed at red by certain vehicles in certain circumstances, e.g. ambulances and fire engines going to an emergency. Stopping at Diagram 3014 / 3015 lights when lit is compulsory for all vehicles, with a spot prize of 9 points for getting caught passing at red.

[LNERGE]

One of the crossings at Three Horse Shoes (March-Peterborough) has a vertical on one side due to restricted clearance. I'm on shift in London until Tues so can't provide a pic, can anyone else?

I don't have a photo but this box diagram shows No1 crossing and it's angle...

 

http://richard2890.fotopic.net/p36793144.html

 

Three Horse Shoes No2 and 3 are still gated at this date. It is the same road crossing all three crossings..

[TheSignalEngineer]

I don't have a photo but this box diagram shows No1 crossing and it's angle...

 

http://richard2890.f.../p36793144.html

 

Three Horse Shoes No2 and 3 are still gated at this date. It is the same road crossing all three crossings..

From Google Earth the box diagram looks well out of date. The crossing with the Diagram 3015 lights is the first one from the box towards March.

[ruggedpeak]

As we landed at Marshbrook LC, near Church Stretton on the Welsh Marches Line, by accident the other day I thought I'd resurrect this thread. On one side of this crossing there are 3 sets of wigwags, on the left is the vertical one (red-orange-red) and on the right two normal sets at 90 degrees to each other as there is a side junction that meets the main road at the crossing. The signal box is manned and the crossing is protected by semaphores in both directions.

 

Eastern approach just off A49

 

View from eastern side looking south

 

View of western side with lights at 90 degrees for road junction

 

Eastern side with vertical lights on left, road junction on the left

 

Eastern side looking north

 

TfW 153 heading south

 

 

I can also highly recommend the fish finger sandwich at the Station Inn - perfectly placed for food, drink and rail photography! http://www.stationinnmarshbrook.co.uk/

Edited August 21, 2021 by ruggedpeak

[Wickham Green too]

Sounds like a lovely place to drop in for lunch and a pint .......... it's a fair hike from the station though !

[TheSignalEngineer]

I'm surprised there are still any about as IIRC they were taken out of the Traffic Signal Regs in 2002. The 2016 version does not list ant permitted variations.

[ruggedpeak]

Just had similar comment on the Prototype for everything thread as I'd linked this there. I think the fundamental issue is that anything else would foul the carriageway.

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

I don't think the vertical arrangement was ever in the Highway Code, so (assuming one survives!) one might get lucky with challenging prosecution on those grounds, but in most cases there's still another set of wigwags on the other side of the street with the valid arrangement.

[SamThomas]

Is it possible that the newer regulations are not retrospective ?

[Michael Hodgson]

I think the vertical ones were  probably never valid but most people would understand them and use commons sense.  I believe that at one time ordinary road traffic lights were only legally enforceable if the pole had black and white stripes (of a certain size), a white line of a given thickness, metal studs in the road and the correct timing of the lights.  But if you ignored them and hit something proceeding from the other road through the green lights, you would still have been negligent, so they could nick you for driving without due care and attention even though you might have got off on a technicality if charged with jumping the red light.

 

Changes to standards would usually only apply to new works, but if the Department had decided that the railways had been erecting non-compliant signs in a few places the railway would usually be prevailed upon to fix them within a reasonable period.

[stewartingram]

There are still some at Three Horse Shoes on the March-Peterborough line.

Edited August 22, 2021 by stewartingram

[Bomag]

20 hours ago, SamThomas said:

Is it possible that the newer regulations are not retrospective ?

 

Except for a limited number of signs there is a saving which means anything lawful when the new regs come into force stays prescribed until moved, or removed.

[Edwin_m]

It's possible they are not legally enforceable, but it's clearly safer to have a non-compliant set of lights than to have none at all in that position.  If someone went through them they could probably be prosecuted anyway for violating the compliant lights that are also visible from the same direction of approach. 

[Reorte]

On 21/08/2021 at 17:58, TheSignalEngineer said:

I'm surprised there are still any about as IIRC they were taken out of the Traffic Signal Regs in 2002. The 2016 version does not list ant permitted variations.

 

How about where the standard ones are simply impossible to fit in?

 

There's this set near me (Furness Vale), where there's simply not the space for an ordinary full-sized wigwag on the left, although it's a compacted horizontal version rather than a vertical one:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3488053,-1.9892803,3a,37.5y,52.64h,81.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srnbcnLT0JL-2MQmK4Gnt8A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?ucbcb=1