Level crossing stupidity...

[melmerby]

There ought to be a court record of this case, any idea how I might be able to search for it?

I think it was in Birmingham (I lived there, so likely) but was some time ago, probably pre everything reported on 'net.

Try 20-30 years ago. Sorry to be vague but it was some time back.

 

Not sure how you would search for it.

 

Keith

[melmerby]

From what I can see, very effective.

 

Again - a much bigger issue for the US than for the UK I'd suspect. 

I had noticed on night shots on Virtual Railfan cameras just how well these relective devices show up.

Maybe It would be some use on UK railways at little extra cost.

But how often will a train be sat across a crossing without any lights?

 

Keith

[stewartingram]

I wonder.  The most recent basic salary I can find for a Crossing Keeper on NR is £24K in 2017 if you then add in a Sunday turn (seemingly paid at 150% plus night shift allowance one past estimate (2013) reckoned an over improvement on base salary of 10%-20%.  Assuming a line open 24 hours, seven days per week, and using only the 10% figure that gives a total of £79,200 p.a. on wages alone,  I don't know how overheads would currently work out on NR but including pension I would think we'll be looking at a minimum of a further 20%p.a.  So your annual staffing cost is going to be around £95K

 

On top of that you need to add accommodation and communications link plus, possibly some signalling controls all of which needs to be provided and then maintained - so merely an annual cost plus renewals if the crossing is currently manned but a capital cost if the crossing is currently unmanned.

 

The capital cost might be difficult to arrive at as it will vary with location and all sorts of other factors but it is probably reasonable to put it well in excess of £100K and possibly as much as double that.  Now let's look the cost over whole scheme life and we'll be generous and use only 20 years (the BR norm was to use 25 years on things like this) so we have =

 

Staff cost £95,000 p.a. x 20 p.a. =  £1.9 million

Installation cost, conservatively     £100,000

 

Total cost so far = £2 million and that excludes annual maintenance and any renewals arising.  Obviously if the crossing is not manned over 24 hours and/or for seven days per week the annual staffing bill will be considerably reduced and over 20 years even including installation costs it will come out at less than £2 million. But would crossings on lines which are that quiet actually need an attended crossing?  And there is of course a ready made answer anyway - if it were cheaper to employ Crossing Keepers than to automate level crossings why did BR start going in for automation etc to get rid of Crossing Keepers well over 40 years ago?

I'm now retired, but whilst at work, the companies I worked for all approximated that wages was roughly 50% of employing someone. In other words, someone on a salary of 25k, cost the company 50k p.a. This was due to things like NI, pensions, etc, and holidays, training, sickness leave were all added in, as well as clothing & other "perks" that were necessary.

Ballpark figures obviously.

 

Stewart

[martin_wynne]

Staff cost £95,000 p.a. x 20 p.a. =  £1.9 million

Installation cost, conservatively     £100,000

 

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks, but I wasn't expecting my suggestion to be taken too seriously.

 

Don't forget to add in the fact that the crossing keeper(s) would be paying income tax, vat on stuff they buy with their wages, and possibly not claiming any state benefits. All of which could go towards state investment in railways.

 

Martin.

[jamie92208]

A bit difficult to quantify in this case, I would have thought.

 

How would you calculate the likelihood of a train coming to a stop in a similar manner at each level crossing?

In the RAIB report it came up with one recorded fatality 8 years ago which I believe was due to signaller error. So history would show maybe one life in 10 years or more.

 

Mind you when has proper risk assessment ever come into play in these circumstances. Look at the shenanigans over electrical clearances where there hasn't been a single fatality in the last 50 years involving a passenger with an umbrella or similar on a station platform getting too close to OHLE. In all these things there is an element of political decision making.

 

Jamie

Edited July 21, 2018 by jamie92208

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks, but I wasn't expecting my suggestion to be taken too seriously.

 

Don't forget to add in the fact that the crossing keeper(s) would be paying income tax, vat on stuff they buy with their wages, and possibly not claiming any state benefits. All of which could go towards state investment in railways.

 

Martin.

 

Not me particularly Martin, nor you, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere (not necessarily on RMweb) would suggest it quite seriously in respect of some level crossings.

[PatB]

On the other hand, would it wash if the railway said we have 200 level crossings which require upgrading to prevent this kind of extremely rare accident ever happening again, no-one can have any idea where the next incident will occur so we would have to upgrade every single one, and it costs £2 million per crossing ? (numbers quoted are purely for the sake of argument !)

 

For something that is only an occasional hazard, practice in other industries would lean more towards putting procedures in place to be followed in the event of the obstruction occurring. Whilst I don't have the rail expertise necessary to comment definitively, I would see something along the lines of sending the guard out to warn traffic with a handlamp as being more in keeping than insisting on the immediate upgrade of all crossings. An extension of the guard's ancient duty of protecting their train in the rear. That's not to be taken as a detailed recommendation; Indeeed, I can see potential problems and impracticalities in implementing it. I merely offer it as one potential approach that would not involve engineeering changes to cover an unusual but predictable situation.

[caradoc]

Most freight trains in the UK run Driver-only, and do not convey brake vans so even if there was a Guard they would not be at the rear of the train !

[martin_wynne]

The end of each barrier could be fitted with a nozzle. As it rises it could spray whitewash or reflective paint towards the track. Any obstruction would then be rendered visible to approaching traffic.

 

This would not require any modification to the signalling equipment.

 

It would also deter motorists weaving round the barriers before they have fully risen.

 

 

Martin.

[Coryton]

In the RAIB report it came up with one recorded fatality 8 years ago which I believe was due to signaller error. So history would show maybe one life in 10 years or more.

 

As you say it was signaller error, and therefore in my view not really related. The barriers were manually worked and the signaller raised them before the train reached the crossing.

[duncan]

Or a speed restriction could be imposed at crossings for motorists, say 30 mph, bit difficult to miss something blocking the crossing at that speed.

 

Of course, if motorists choose to ignore the speed limit, phone or text while driving, once in 10 years there would be a mess to hose off the wagons  

[jim.snowdon]

The end of each barrier could be fitted with a nozzle. As it rises it could spray whitewash or reflective paint towards the track. Any obstruction would then be rendered visible to approaching traffic.

 

This would not require any modification to the signalling equipment.

 

It would also deter motorists weaving round the barriers before they have fully risen.

 

 

Martin.

One simple way to deter motorists from weaving round the barriers is to install a physical barrier down the white line on the approach to both sides of the crossing for, say, 30m from the barrier line. Back to back Trief kerb blocks would do the job, and having to negotiate the extra distance on the wrong side of the road would be deterrent.

The snag is that it involves working with the Highway Authorities to create an integrated solution, something that the railway seems singularly reluctant to do. It's one of those problems that can't be solved entirely within the railway boundary, other than by removing the crossing completely, often not a practicable proposition.

 

Jim

[locoholic]

Just to show that not all users of level crossings are stupid:

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mWwTtYick0o&feature=share

 

I wonder how long they waited.

 

Apologies if it's been on here before.

 

PS: What a fabulous location!

Edited July 22, 2018 by locoholic

[Coryton]

Or a speed restriction could be imposed at crossings for motorists, say 30 mph, bit difficult to miss something blocking the crossing at that speed.

 

Indeed.

 

While there is a strong argument that level crossings shouldn't be designed to permit the barriers to rise whlie the crossing is blocked, the fundamental problem is that of road vehicles travelling at speeds at which they are unable to stop when an obstruction is sighted.

 

The counterargument would be that they should be able to stop if the obstacle is reflective or lit, and it's generally arranged for this to be the case on roads (e.g. road works, skips, parked cars etc...)

 

Maybe somebody should put reflectors on all trees that might fall down blocking a road at night, just in case?

 

Probably more chance of that happening than another freight train coming to a halt blocking a level crossing and not being seen by a driver...

[Compound2632]

Just to show that not all users of level crossings are stupid:

 

 

I wonder how long they waited.

 

Apologies if it's been on here before.

 

PS: What a fabulous location!

 

Now if one saw that location modelled one would be grumbling about the unlikelihood of such a cliched scene: tunnel mouth, level crossing, bridge...

 

Now thinking about how to replicate the steam and smoke billowing out of the tunnel mouth!

[LMS2968]

At least, you wouldn't to worry about the stationary road traffic after the train has passed!. I don't think the motor cyclists were steam fans.

[Budgie]

Now thinking about how to replicate the steam and smoke billowing out of the tunnel mouth!

Smoke machine as used at pop concerts?

[Fat Controller]

One simple way to deter motorists from weaving round the barriers is to install a physical barrier down the white line on the approach to both sides of the crossing for, say, 30m from the barrier line. Back to back Trief kerb blocks would do the job, and having to negotiate the extra distance on the wrong side of the road would be deterrent.

The snag is that it involves working with the Highway Authorities to create an integrated solution, something that the railway seems singularly reluctant to do. It's one of those problems that can't be solved entirely within the railway boundary, other than by removing the crossing completely, often not a practicable proposition.

 

Jim

I've seen this applied in France, and also photos of it other countries. It might have stopped the silly on Romney  Marsh who pulled out of her drive, drove some distance alongside the queue of stationary traffic and onto the level crossing. Sadly, it was the driver of the RH&DR loco that was killed.

[kevinlms]

Just to show that not all users of level crossings are stupid:

 

 

I wonder how long they waited.

 

Apologies if it's been on here before.

 

PS: What a fabulous location!

On the same page in You tube was this Russian effort. But not at a level crossing!

 

[Theo C. Cupier]

Not level crossing related, but this fits the stupidity element. I don't normally use faceache, but this was shared by one of my contacts, and I thought it may be of interest. 

This is the associated text.- 

" Absolutely unbelievable. Spoke to the 'Adult', his reply was 'the trains not due'. When I pointed out there may be others ie. Freight, empties, unscheduled etc the reply was 'The next ones not till 1638'. After speaking to the guard and explaining to the man that people are seriously injured and die doing this I was told (By the not so responsible adult) I was a do gooder and the lad just wanted to look at the track.....I can only try. "

 

[beast66606]

Not level crossing related, but this fits the stupidity element. I don't normally use faceache, but this was shared by one of my contacts, and I thought it may be of interest. 

This is the associated text.- 

" Absolutely unbelievable. Spoke to the 'Adult', his reply was 'the trains not due'. When I pointed out there may be others ie. Freight, empties, unscheduled etc the reply was 'The next ones not till 1638'. After speaking to the guard and explaining to the man that people are seriously injured and die doing this I was told (By the not so responsible adult) I was a do gooder and the lad just wanted to look at the track.....I can only try. "

trowstn.jpg

 

Lets hope BTP take some action

[PhilJ W]

On the same page in You tube was this Russian effort. But not at a level crossing!

 

https://youtu.be/rZMpTSaQtrQ

Loved the sound of the EMU's accelerating after the track had been cleared.

[LMS2968]

He wasn't hanging about, that's for sure!

[jim.snowdon]

Lets hope BTP take some action

As in sending the perpetrator a stiff letter, assuming that they can actually identify the person concerned?

 

Jim

[Colin_McLeod]

And assuming he can read!