Jump to content
 

Level crossing stupidity...


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

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! ;)

 Indeed.

Do the various Acts of Parliament not provide for the 'reversal' of a right-of-way?  {Yup, I know a Right of Way is a footpath so denoted.....but folks hopefully get the jist?}

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Luckily sail still has right of way over steam in most  (but not all) circumstances. Although the Norfolk broads is having difficulty with network rail over lack of maintenance and not opening of bridges..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Reorte said:

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. 

 

That does sound plausible.

 

In Caerphilly there is a no-pedestrians road, and where a footpath crosses it there are signs to indicate that pedestrians are allowed on the tiny stretch of road involved but not beyond.

 

Having said that, I think there's also a section that says no pedestrians on one side of the road and not on the other, which rather spoils that line of argument.

 

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

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.

 

Well perhaps, but (aside from the disruption that crossing accidents have not to mention the effect on the train driver) the result seems to be that new level crossings aren't permitted, placing a constraint on new railway lines.

 

I think it should be possible to construct level crossings that are safe enough to be allowed.

 

(And at the other end, if we can treat trams as road vehicles, I don't see why a new-build railway line shouldn't be allowed to have level crossings traversed at walking pace, e.g. for access to factory sidings).

 

I think there is a good case for no more AHB level crossings though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
30 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 Indeed.

Do the various Acts of Parliament not provide for the 'reversal' of a right-of-way?  {Yup, I know a Right of Way is a footpath so denoted.....but folks hopefully get the jist?}

 

Yes, rights of way can be removed ("stopped up") or diverted if the local authority approves it.

 

There are a few near where I live that have been removed on the fairly reasonable grounds that they don't exist any more due to a quarry (though the OS maps still show them somehow floating above the ground crossing the quarry).

 

(Not only that, but they have cut through a former railway tunnel - you can look down into the quarry and see the ends.)

 

Recently somebody must have realised there was a public footpath on paper that went through the corner of someone's house near me, and the council went through the process of getting rid of it, including signs letting people know that they could object. (At a guess, it was discovered when someone was buying the house)

 

 

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

25 minutes ago, Coryton said:

..................... I don't see why a new-build railway line shouldn't be allowed to have level crossings traversed at walking pace, ...................

I'm not sure exactly whether the Rother Valley Railway at Robertsbridge is technically 'new-build' or reinstatement but they're certainly hoping / intending to cross two or three roads on the level including the A21.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, TheQ said:

Luckily sail still has right of way over steam in most  (but not all) circumstances. Although the Norfolk broads is having difficulty with network rail over lack of maintenance and not opening of bridges..

 

So going diesel must've been quite a relief for BR there :D

  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours 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).

Most of the problems with level crossings are caused by user error, not the crossing itself!

When used correctly (obeying the lights etc) level crossings are perfectly safe.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, royaloak said:

Most of the problems with level crossings are caused by user error, not the crossing itself!

When used correctly (obeying the lights etc) level crossings are perfectly safe.

Agree with you entirely!  Hence why I see no reason to shut all level crossings and cause great inconvenience and journeys of 3 miles just to get from one side of a village to another.

The title of this thread says it all, really.  Going over a level crossing with the lights flashing is an extremely stupid thing to do.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheQ said:

Luckily sail still has right of way over steam in most  (but not all) circumstances. Although the Norfolk broads is having difficulty with network rail over lack of maintenance and not opening of bridges..

As the saying goes, here lies the body of Harold Day, who insisted on his right of way.  When I learnt to sail on Southampton Water, steam (and diesel) had right of way as you did not argue with Cunard's Queens or Esso's oil tankers (not if you wanted to stay alive, anyway).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours 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).

 

I agree, but in my opinion the railway in the UK already does as much as is reasonably practical to provide a safe right of way at level crossings (and the UK level crossing accident statistics, compared to elsewhere in the world, would suggest that our various systems are actually quite effective). However when road users knowingly and deliberately disregard the precautions in place to ensure their safety, as well as that of rail users, should the solution automatically be yet more cost and disruption to the railway ?

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheQ said:

Luckily sail still has right of way over steam in most  (but not all) circumstances.

That's because sailing ships aren't generally as manouevrable as mechanically powered ships.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
42 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

I agree, but in my opinion the railway in the UK already does as much as is reasonably practical to provide a safe right of way at level crossings (and the UK level crossing accident statistics, compared to elsewhere in the world, would suggest that our various systems are actually quite effective). However when road users knowingly and deliberately disregard the precautions in place to ensure their safety, as well as that of rail users, should the solution automatically be yet more cost and disruption to the railway ?

Nobody knows that until an incident occurs and a judge says so. Hence big fine for the incident at Elsenham and no big fine for Hipperholme.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheQ said:

Luckily sail still has right of way over steam in most  (but not all) circumstances. Although the Norfolk broads is having difficulty with network rail over lack of maintenance and not opening of bridges..

 

Sail has a little difficulty in getting the other party to give way when that other party is a supertanker (or other such vessel)... :)

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

Cunard's Queens or Esso's oil tankers

Sailing of QE2 delayed somewhat in Southampton water....because of the wee old BP tanker I was on, needed to anchor prior to popping over to Hamble to discharge....petroleum [products, not crude oil...] so posh had to give way to a No Smokin' tanker! [Not very smart one either...]   

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Oz, power vessels are required to give way to sail. However, documentation is worded such as to convey that if you put your 8ft dinghy in the path of something big, you shouldn't be surprised if you get run down and receive no sympathy. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, PatB said:

In Oz, power vessels are required to give way to sail. However, documentation is worded such as to convey that if you put your 8ft dinghy in the path of something big, you shouldn't be surprised if you get run down and receive no sympathy. 

The world regulations for sailing motor vessels are the same, however on the Norfolk Broads, even though we are legally an arm of the sea our regulations are in the odd case different.  

BUT, using our regulations wording.

 

Responsibilities Between Vessels
10
(b) The master of a sailing vessel underway shall keep his vessel out of the way of:

(i) a vessel not under command;

(ii) a vessel restricted in its ability to manoeuvre;

(iii) a quanted vessel.


(c) (i) The master of a vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in its ability to manoeuvre shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid his vessel impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by its draught, exhibiting the signal in Byelaw 39.

(ii) The master of a vessel constrained by its draught shall navigate his vessel with particular caution having full regard to that constraint.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (a) (iii) of this Byelaw a Sailing Vessel shall include a wherry under sail notwithstanding that it is also being propelled by machinery; and for this purpose a wherry shall mean a vessel known in the Broads as a wherry or wherry yacht.

 

You'll note the bit about Wherries that doesn't appear in world regulations, our reg's also include it's illegal to fish from a sailing or mechanically propelled boat underway. Also fishermen should remove their tackle from the water so as to not impeed the navigation of vessels.

 

There are other sections like boats coming out of a side river have to give way to boats on the main river, and boats crossing the river (not tacking) also give way to boats going along the river.

 

All the above and much more will come into play (and much more) on Saturday when our 100 sailing boats set sail on the 3 Rivers Race, confusing the hell out of the tourists who've never read the navigation rules and are only interested in getting to the next pub.

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, alastairq said:

Sailing of QE2 delayed somewhat in Southampton water....because of the wee old BP tanker I was on, needed to anchor prior to popping over to Hamble to discharge....petroleum [products, not crude oil...] so posh had to give way to a No Smokin' tanker! [Not very smart one either...]   

Down in a lowly sailing dingy we never took part in arguments between the bigger boys.  Doubt if there was any danger of fire if we had hit a petroleum laden tanker, just glug glug!

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
41 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

Down in a lowly sailing dingy we never took part in arguments between the bigger boys.  Doubt if there was any danger of fire if we had hit a petroleum laden tanker, just glug glug!

 Don't risk crossing in front of a train  tanker,  The skipper of the yacht got fined, IRRC he was navy or EX navy..

you'll note the spinnaker collapses just before the impact, the skipper obviously forgot the wind interferance of the tanker wiould cause him to lose speed just at the wrong time..

Edited by TheQ
  • Like 6
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...