Level crossing stupidity...

[jim.snowdon]

6 hours ago, royaloak said:

And yet another thread gets derailed by a pedantic discussion! 

Where would we be without pedants and pedantic discussions?

 

Jim 

[Richard E]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

Where would we be without pedants and pedantic discussions?

 

Jim 

Dealing with rivet counters ...

[pH]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

Where would we be without pedants and pedantic discussions?

 

Jim 

 

Still on topic?

[Dave Hunt]

Just to get back on topic, I went over the level crossing at Wem again today and remembered that last time I had forgotten my reading glasses!

 

Dave

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Dave Hunt said:

Just to get back on topic, I went over the level crossing at Wem again today and remembered that last time I had forgotten my reading glasses!

 

Dave

If you had forgotten your glasses can you be sure it was Wem?

[Dave Hunt]

Well, it was only my reading glasses so I'm fairly sure it was Wem, or was it Wembley .......

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by Dave Hunt

[Dave Hunt]

I've just realised that I've possibly caused us now to wander off onto eye tests or the legibility of Network Rail signage or something...

[jcredfer]

3 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

Where would we be without pedants and pedantic discussions?

 

Jim 

 

You have just destroyed our whole democratic system......    well done Guy!

 

Regards 

 

Julian

[jcredfer]

1 hour ago, Dave Hunt said:

Just to get back on topic, I went over the level crossing at Wem again today and remembered that last time I had forgotten my reading glasses!

 

Dave

 

Grief!!!  How come you are driving, when you require "reading glasses" for a sign and lights 50 Metres away?????????

 

Regards

 

Julian

[Dave Hunt]

I just knew I'd blown it and dragged us off topic again.

[Porkscratching]

Really it's spatial awareness that's more important for driving rather than fine focus....

The actual point being to go from A to B without twatting anything...

[royaloak]

7 hours ago, pH said:

 

Still on topic?

Highly unlikely, but I admire your thinking! 

Edited May 27, 2019 by royaloak

[Hobby]

I blame it on the Country's drivers, just when we need them to do something daft they all behave...

 

 

 

(Now if that doesn't provoke some stupid driving on a Bank Holiday nothing will!)

[kevinlms]

11 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

Well, it was only my reading glasses so I'm fairly sure it was Wem, or was it Wembley .......

 

Wem or Wembley. Do you mean that one of the lenses had fallen out - the right one of course!

[Coryton]

On 25/05/2019 at 23:23, phil-b259 said:

Yes a tram is technically to be treated the same as a bus for legal purposes - which is what allows it to be used on the public highway (even if it does run on rails or have dedicated routes where other traffic / pedestrians are excluded.

 

It therefore makes perfect sense to use ordinary road traffic signals at tramway 'level crossings' (which is technically just a simple crossroads in law)

 

 

 

I'm not sure it's as simple as that - how do (or perhaps did) "tramways" carrying regular rail vehicles (e.g. Weymouth) fit into this picture?

 

I have always assumed that the justification for treating road/tramway junctions as road junctions (and indeed not having to fence them off) is presumably that trams are supposed to have stopping power similar to road vehicle, unlike most trains.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Coryton said:

 

I'm not sure it's as simple as that - how do (or perhaps did) "tramways" carrying regular rail vehicles (e.g. Weymouth) fit into this picture?

 

I have always assumed that the justification for treating road/tramway junctions as road junctions (and indeed not having to fence them off) is presumably that trams are supposed to have stopping power similar to road vehicle, unlike most trains.

 

Its important not to confuse railway 'tramways' (which were typically built to serve industry or connect to docks) with those tramways built in roads by local authorities or private enterprises in urban areas as a form of mass transit.

 

Railway 'tramways' were built using a different legislative path and the inclusion of the term in the authorising acts was more cosmetic than anything (note the authorising act permitting the railways construction would specify the exact details of any operating restrictions, etc

 

Tramways in Manchester, Croydon etc may look all swish and modern but the legislation which governs them has its roots in that which permitted the introduction or urban tramways in our cities over a century ago. This worked on the basis of 'drive on sight' with the onus on the tram driver not to hit anything in the same way as the driver of a horse and cart of the period would be expected to keep control of his vehicle / animal.

 

Yes traffic lights have made things easier, but fundamentally its still up to the road user to drive appropriately regardless of whether the vehicle has rubber tyres or metal wheels and rails.

 

As you say trams are expected to have the same or better stopping abilities than a rubber tyred road vehicles but this is derived from them using the public highway - not because of the word 'tramway' as such

Edited May 27, 2019 by phil-b259

[jcredfer]

1 hour ago, Coryton said:

 

I'm not sure it's as simple as that - how do (or perhaps did) "tramways" carrying regular rail vehicles (e.g. Weymouth) fit into this picture?

 

I have always assumed that the justification for treating road/tramway junctions as road junctions (and indeed not having to fence them off) is presumably that trams are supposed to have stopping power similar to road vehicle, unlike most trains.

 

There is a significant difference...   Trams and motor transport come to the crossings with signals at the crossing.  All vehicles arrive, expecting to stop before they proceed, with signals at the crossing.  Signals for trains approaching road/rail crossings are a large distance away.

 

Perhaps the Tram system should be the situation for rail crossings, too, until they are replaced by bridges, or other systems that remove the traffic conflict.

 

Regards

 

J

[melmerby]

Another thing that is a difference between trams and trains is that trams have brake lights & indicators, even if their direction is limited by the rails they are on!

 

BTW not all railway crossings have their signals miles away, some semaphore signalled areas had the signals right on the crossing, especially if there is a platform/station.

St Bees northbound platform still has a semaphore at the crossing, there are probably others.

[Coryton]

1 hour ago, jcredfer said:

 

There is a significant difference...   Trams and motor transport come to the crossings with signals at the crossing.  All vehicles arrive, expecting to stop before they proceed, with signals at the crossing.  Signals for trains approaching road/rail crossings are a large distance away.

 

 

And the reason that signals at the crossing work for trams is because they can stop much more quickly than a train.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by expecting to stop before they proceed though - trams don't have to stop at a road crossing if they have a proceed signal, or if it is unsignalled and they have priority.

 

1 hour ago, jcredfer said:

Perhaps the Tram system should be the situation for rail crossings, too, until they are replaced by bridges, or other systems that remove the traffic conflict.

 

I suppose if you want to cripple large parts of the railway network that would be as good a way as any.

 

There are plenty of places in the UK where there is no way that level crossings could be replaced without closing a railway line or causing unacceptable disruption to road traffic.

 

I would argue that while a full barrier crossing with obstacle detection is a nuisance to road traffic, it's a lot safer than other dangers on the roads.

[Coryton]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Its important not to confuse railway 'tramways' (which were typically built to serve industry or connect to docks) with those tramways built in roads by local authorities or private enterprises in urban areas as a form of mass transit.

 

As you say trams are expected to have the same or better stopping abilities than a rubber tyred road vehicles but this is derived from them using the public highway - not because of the word 'tramway' as such

 

I wasn't trying to base an argument on terminology (which is why I put "tramways" in quotes).

 

I was questioning the reasoning that a tram derives its right to be on a road by being legally considered a bus, given that full size trains used to get to drive through the streets of Weymouth, among other places.

 

 

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Its important not to confuse railway 'tramways' (which were typically built to serve industry or connect to docks) with those tramways built in roads by local authorities or private enterprises in urban areas as a form of mass transit.

 

Railway 'tramways' were built using a different legislative path and the inclusion of the term in the authorising acts was more cosmetic than anything (note the authorising act permitting the railways construction would specify the exact details of any operating restrictions, etc

 

Tramways in Manchester, Croydon etc may look all swish and modern but the legislation which governs them has its roots in that which permitted the introduction or urban tramways in our cities over a century ago. This worked on the basis of 'drive on sight' with the onus on the tram driver not to hit anything in the same way as the driver of a horse and cart of the period would be expected to keep control of his vehicle / animal.

 

Yes traffic lights have made things easier, but fundamentally its still up to the road user to drive appropriately regardless of whether the vehicle has rubber tyres or metal wheels and rails.

 

As you say trams are expected to have the same or better stopping abilities than a rubber tyred road vehicles but this is derived from them using the public highway - not because of the word 'tramway' as such

On the first point, correct, although many of those that were in docks and industrial estates were almost certainly not on the public highway, but in private roads belonging to the dock or industrial estate owners and to which the public had access for legitimate purposes.

 

The legal position of "tramways" is an interesting one. The majority of first generation systems were covered by the 1870 Tramways Act; all of the second generation systems were built until specific Acts, in which, interestingly, they are referred to as "railways", as in "Railway No. 1 etc" for the purposes of defining the alignment and limits of deviation within which the powers of the Act could be exercised. That doesn't mean that they are legally railways, but as far as I could find out, is simply the result of antiquated parliamentary phraseology, going back to the days when the predecessors of railways were canals. The 1870 Act still appears from time to time as references in the more modern Acts, a particularly problematic one being its reference to the rails being level with the road surface without actually having defined what its originators meant by "level" (which was that  they should not be laid on the road surface, as had been the case with a number of very early tramways). Otherwise, the 1870 Act is largely a matter of history when it comes to modern tramways.

 

Tramways, in the urban transit sense, are generally operated under line of sight rules, although this does not apply to the Bury or Altrincham branches of Metrolink, which are operated as signalled railways. A distinct difference with regard to tramway/highway crossings is that usually the tram will call the traffic signals as it approaches and get a clear run through, with the resukt that the period between the road signal going red and the tram crossing is much shorter than has become the case for railways. It taes a little time time, but "white van man" does eventually get the message that the sort of chances you can take on a railway level crossing because of their design cannot be taken when it comes to a tram crossing. And the tram almost inevitably comes of far better than the road vehicle.

 

Trams do not have better stopping abillities than road vehicles, although they are close to being on a par with a heavy goods vehicle. They do have a much better deceleration than a train, not least due to magnetic track brakes being a normal fitment, and the achievable braking rate is a compromise between trying to meet rubber tyred vehicles and not injuring the passengers. The requirements for tramcars are enshrined in the recommendations and guidance issued by that part of the ORR that constitutes the Railway Inspectorate, and tramways and the ability to take them into use remained one of the few things where the formal approval of the Secretary of State for Transport was still required (albeit normally exercised by the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways).

 

Jim

[jcredfer]

6 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

And the reason that signals at the crossing work for trams is because they can stop much more quickly than a train. Thank you, that was rather my point on railway approach speeds and signal locations, where there may be a traffic conflict.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by expecting to stop before they proceed though - trams don't have to stop at a road crossing if they have a proceed signal, or if it is unsignalled and they have priority.  Thank you again for emphasising my point - if they have a "stop", they have NO priority and have to stop!  When Trams approach a crossing, they do so at a speed which accounts for a signal on the junction, at stop or off and therefore at a speed which will allow for a stop.  Railway signals are placed at a {far} distance, which will allow for the train to stop - should the crossing barriers not be set against the road traffic.  But there is no provision for cautionary speeds to the approach to the crossing, suffice to enable a stop before striking any obstruction.

 

I suppose if you want to cripple large parts of the railway network that would be as good a way as any.  In the first place, I'm not convinced that cautious approach speeds to road crossings would "Cripple" large parts of the railway network.  In the second place, it would prevent some [of the less informed - to - idiots] people from being damaged and the rail loco drivers suffering the long term effects of the collision.

 

There are plenty of places in the UK where there is no way that level crossings could be replaced without closing a railway line or causing unacceptable disruption to road traffic.  Really?  I can see a whole load more where solutions have been found, so road and rail traffic may now proceed  without interaction.  In those few places remaining, where for some extraordinary circumstance, an alternative may be not available, suitable train approach signalling could easily slow the trains on the approach, so that the driver could stop, should some idiot .there be an obstruction on the crossing

 

I would argue that while a full barrier crossing with obstacle detection is a nuisance to road traffic, it's a lot safer than other dangers on the roads.  True, but much improved without the traffic conflict in the first place.

 

Regards

 

J

 

[Coryton]

13 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

Railway signals are placed at a {far} distance, which will allow for the train to stop - should the crossing barriers not be set against the road traffic.  But there is no provision for cautionary speeds to the approach to the crossing, suffice to enable a stop before striking any obstruction.

 

Perhaps we're at cross-purposes here, but there are plenty of level crossings on National Rail which do rely on the train driver to check that the crossing is clear before passing over the crossing, and where the train has to approach at a suitably slow speed in order to do so.

 

13 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

I suppose if you want to cripple large parts of the railway network that would be as good a way as any.  In the first place, I'm not convinced that cautious approach speeds to road crossings would "Cripple" large parts of the railway network.  In the second place, it would prevent some [of the less informed - to - idiots] people from being damaged and the rail loco drivers suffering the long term effects of the collision.

 

Well of course it would reduce risk. And again maybe I've misunderstood, but if you're suggesting slowing down trains at every level crossing in the UK to speeds at which they could be stopped short of an obstruction, that would have an enormous impact both on travel times and capacity. Slowing down a 125 mph service to a crawl for a level crossing isn't really practical.

 

13 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

 

There are plenty of places in the UK where there is no way that level crossings could be replaced without closing a railway line or causing unacceptable disruption to road traffic.  Really?  I can see a whole load more where solutions have been found, so road and rail traffic may now proceed  without interaction.  In those few places remaining, where for some extraordinary circumstance, an alternative may be not available, suitable train approach signalling could easily slow the trains on the approach, so that the driver could stop, should some idiot .there be an obstruction on the crossing

 

Well yes, but the level crossings that have been dealt with are the ones of course where it's practical. That doesn't mean that everywhere is so easy and there are many remaining where a bridge would be completely impractical so the only option would be to close the road entirely. And again, of course the crossing could be signalled to force trains to approach at a crawl, but not without a huge impact on services.

 

13 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

 

I would argue that while a full barrier crossing with obstacle detection is a nuisance to road traffic, it's a lot safer than other dangers on the roads.  True, but much improved without the traffic conflict in the first place.

 

Well yes but there is as usual a trade-off between risk and convenience and if I were going to spend money to save lives on roads I wouldn't start with closing level crossings. 

(Though it might be a good place to start to improve safety on the railways, given that they tend not to kill and maim their users on the same scale as road transport does).

[PhilJ W]

There were some tramways built under a light railway order, Southend-on-sea for example. 

[melmerby]

I wonder what the status of the trains that ran on some street tramways was, in amongst the trams?

e.g. Glasgow