Jump to content
 

Level crossing stupidity...


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, melmerby said:

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

e.g. Glasgow

Good question. A lot would depend on the legal status. Some of the trains continued to use the tram tracks after the trams were replaced by trolleybuses but continued to draw power from the trolleybus overhead using twin poles.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I lived in Croydon as a kid, trolleybuses were still in operation, these had previously,( before my time) operated side by side with trams using the same overhead power , both services ( I assume) and the infrastructure, were run by London Transport, and long time arrangement with the local authority no doubt..

The corner of George st, here, some routes also used normal double decker motor buses too, I often used to catch the 109 with my gran !

_20190527_232930.JPG

Edited by Porkscratching
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Coryton said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Like I said its all down to the legislation! As any lawyer will tell you just because two things look the same doesn't mean the same laws apply to both.

 

Whilst it may have been called a 'tramway' the line down to Weymouth Quay was actually created via Railway legislation with the exemptions from railway norms specifically listed in the enabling act.

 

Most urban Tramway systems** were authorised under completely different legislation - namely the Tramways Act 1870*. This legislation is still in force and it has been used as the basis for the legislation which allowed the construction of the modern systems in Croydon, Manchester, etc.

 

* http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/33-34/78

 

** Some later extensions and a few new systems used powers obtained under the Light Railways Act 1896 while other legislative changes altered the rather restrictive provisions of the 1870 act to permit local authorities to construct and operate their own tramways outright rather than on a concession basis.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote "Most urban Tramway systems** were authorised under completely different legislation - namely the Tramways Act 1870*. This legislation is still in force and it has been used as the basis for the legislation which allowed the construction of the modern systems in Croydon, Manchester, etc."

 

Considerable swathes of the 1870 Act were repealed by the Transport & Works Act, which effectively replaced it.

 

Jim 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One obvious difference between the urban street tramway system and cases like Weymouth is that, on the former, trams run on an "as of right" type basis as normal vehicles in the street. OTOH, at Weymouth, I gather the passage of a train was something of an exceptional event, with the road being, effectively, closed to other moving traffic as the train passed, railway staff equipped with flags walking in advance, and, at least in later years, flashing lamps and whatnot on the train.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but imposing a restriction on every train approaching a level crossing so that it can stop in case of an obstruction is an utterly impractical suggestion, and imposes the cost and disruption caused by road user misuse or error on the rail industry.

 

There is a much simpler solution to achieving 100% level crossing safety (for trains at least), shut every single one and block the road with concrete blocks ! Access would be retained for pedestrians, cyclists and horses, as colliding with them is not likely to seriously endanger a train. OK, vehicle users would be inconvenienced by having to find another and probably longer route, but better that they should suffer than rail users.

 

Network Rail has been trying to reduce the risk at level crossings by closing them where possible, upgrading them (eg Kirknewton, which was converted from AHB to OD operation) or indeed building bridges (eg the infamous Ufton Nervet). However there are places where bridges would be so expensive as to be impractical, Logans Road and Cleghorn in Scotland being two such situations.

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could achieve 100% safety for everyone (pedestrians, cyclist and horse riders included) by closing all the railway lines.  In the vast majority of cases, the roads and footpaths existed long before the railway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
25 minutes ago, Porkscratching said:

Or everyone could just stay at home....:D

 

We'd get more modelling done.

 

Though there wouldn't be much for those who like to model the modern scene....

  • Like 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, eastglosmog said:

You could achieve 100% safety for everyone (pedestrians, cyclist and horse riders included) by closing all the railway lines.  In the vast majority of cases, the roads and footpaths existed long before the railway.

That'll soon thin out the population with all the road deaths, and far quicker than level crossings ever could......

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
30 minutes ago, Davexoc said:

That'll soon thin out the population with all the road deaths, and far quicker than level crossings ever could......

 

Not if you also bring back the man* with a red flag walking in front of cars...

 

* Other genders are available

  • Like 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

Not if you also bring back the man* with a red flag walking in front of cars...

 

* Other genders are available

Nine at the last count. :unsure: :jester: And no I don't know what they are. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Nine at the last count. :unsure: :jester: And no I don't know what they are. 

 

Going wildly off-topic here (but that's a good sign on this thread, right?), I offer this (which is, I believe, intended to be serious):

 

image.png.0241e568a62d45dd99804ea8cd5ad0ff.png

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Porkscratching said:

So does that mean its ok to flash your 'winkle' in front of the ladies now then..?..;)

 

Have one, don't have one, will choose at some stage........

 

..............  meanwhile need to find a sign like this, 'cause I need a pee!!!

 

Regards

 

Julian

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Porkscratching said:

Need a slash? Don't know which way to go?..what about a "stadium pal"...:biggrin_mini2:

( ladies version would be an interesting plumbing challenge.....)

 

Which has, presumably, been solved, given that you can also obtain a "stadium gal".

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

You could achieve 100% safety for everyone (pedestrians, cyclist and horse riders included) by closing all the railway lines.  In the vast majority of cases, the roads and footpaths existed long before the railway.

 

Regarding the second sentence, that is certainly true, so does that mean that road traffic should have priority over rail at all such locations, and trains should stop to await a path across when the road is clear, or just slow down to avoid any possible collision, as suggested above ? BTW on the WCML there are five level crossings between Carlisle and Glasgow Central, so any such restriction certainly would cripple the train service.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Regarding the second sentence, that is certainly true, so does that mean that road traffic should have priority over rail at all such locations, and trains should stop to await a path across when the road is clear, or just slow down to avoid any possible collision, as suggested above ? BTW on the WCML there are five level crossings between Carlisle and Glasgow Central, so any such restriction certainly would cripple the train service.

 

 

No, but the onus is on the railway to make the crossing safe and maintain the right of users of the public highway to cross when it is safe to do so.  The level crossings were put in to save cost to the railway, not the highway user.  If you were to shut some of the crossings round here, you would cause considerable inconvenience to the locals.  So far as I know, the nearest level crossing has not had a fatal accident in the last 30 years (but then it does have a signal box controlling it).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
33 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

No, but the onus is on the railway to make the crossing safe and maintain the right of users of the public highway to cross when it is safe to do so.  The level crossings were put in to save cost to the railway, not the highway user.  If you were to shut some of the crossings round here, you would cause considerable inconvenience to the locals.  So far as I know, the nearest level crossing has not had a fatal accident in the last 30 years (but then it does have a signal box controlling it).

 

Unlike roads, of course.

 

All a busy 70 mph dual carriageway needs to make a public footpath crossing it "safe" is two signs warning of pedestrians crossing ahead.

 

I'd take my chances on most railway foot crossings over that (but not all....) OK the train has even less of a chance of avoiding me than a car does...but there are generally safe gaps between trains to cross and (unless late at night) they sound their horns when they are coming.

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Level Crossings ARE safe if used correctly, the problem isn't the railway or the crossings themselves, it's the users, whether they be pedestrians, cyclists or motor vehicle drivers. If we all travelled by Public Transport the world would be a much safer place.

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, Hobby said:

The Level Crossings ARE safe if used correctly, the problem isn't the railway or the crossings themselves, it's the users, whether they be pedestrians, cyclists or motor vehicle drivers. If we all travelled by Public Transport the world would be a much safer place.

 

Let's suppose we want to make a truly "safe" level crossing (i.e. similar safety standards to the very high ones which prevail in most other parts of the rail network).

 

It has to be full barrier (unless trains are going to slow to a crawl as discussed above).

 

There are I think two main dangers:

1) Signals cleared but crossing already obstructed

2) Crossing entered after barriers down.

 

Now we do pretty well with someone in a signal box looking out of the window or at a screen but people aren't perfect.

Suppose we have automatic obstacle detection + either a human observer or machine learning system ("AI") looking at in image.

The chance of 1) happening must then be exceedingly small - belts and braces.

 

So that leaves 2). Barriers are generally fairly easy to drive through, and I suppose they have to be in case 1) fails.

But if we're confident it won't, it would be possible to have barriers that would stop all but the most determined road user from passing through. (More expensive and probably slower than what we have now, but not impossible).

 

So I would have thought we could make level crossings extremely safe, if there was the will and money to do so.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 minutes ago, Coryton said:

 

Unlike roads, of course.

 

All a busy 70 mph dual carriageway needs to make a public footpath crossing it "safe" is two signs warning of pedestrians crossing ahead.

 

I'd take my chances on most railway foot crossings over that (but not all....) OK the train has even less of a chance of avoiding me than a car does...but there are generally safe gaps between trains to cross and (unless late at night) they sound their horns when they are coming.

I'm at risk of heading into speculation here but that's because the dual carriageway is as much of a right of way for pedestrians as a footpath (even though it's not exactly sensible). A motorway on the other hand isn't so they were required to put bridges in for existing footpaths. Mind you by that logic railways should have to put bridges in for foot crossings (at least for new ones), and whilst in practice I imagine standards say they have to does the law?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Coryton said:

Let's suppose we want to make a truly "safe" level crossing (i.e. similar safety standards to the very high ones which prevail in most other parts of the rail network).

 

So I would have thought we could make level crossings extremely safe, if there was the will and money to do so.

 

My point is why should we have to to... They are safe enough as it is, even AHBs and foot crossings. If the local people want them to be safer just to allow for the few idiots let them pay for the extra costs, not the railways.

 

BTW for those who say the roads were there before, widespread use of motor vehicles and cycles came long after the railways so that argument could be turned on it's head, we need only make them safe for Horses and pedestrians! ;)

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
29 minutes ago, Coryton said:

So that leaves 2). Barriers are generally fairly easy to drive through, and I suppose they have to be in case 1) fails.

 

Full barriers could be designed to swing open away from the railway, with minimal vehicle damage.

 

A better option than half barriers?

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

AIUI half barriers were implemented to provide an escape route, so presumably there's no reason for them at all on a signal-protected crossing with obstacle detection (be it a person in a signal box or a more high-tech system, the reliability of either notwithstanding)?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...