Jump to content
 

Level crossing stupidity...


Recommended Posts

Not quite a level crossing but exactly the same vein, the street running section of the Molliebahn and of course it was a Mercedes. Seems the driver deliberately pulls out in front of the loco too. No way they didn't hear it coming even if they didn't look. 

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎20‎/‎06‎/‎2020 at 00:05, melmerby said:

I don't think this has been on before:

 

 

We had a site once where the booking in / safety cabin was next to a level crossing. The lady running it watched us remove the crossing deck, then she watched us remove the track, and dig out the ballast to a foot below sleeper bottom. When her shift was over she got into her boy friends new Range Rover and tried to drive home across the level crossing straight into the 26" deep hole.

 

Still I suppose being one of the few people to own a car that has been lifted out of a hole by a TRM must have been of some consolation to him.

  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

The may have got onto the case quickly but they got the wrong end of the stick. The story has now been rewritten. The accident was not on the main road but on a side road leading to a dog training centre.

Jonathan


As soon as I saw the pictures I recognised it as the crossing to the kennels, couple of crossings along from Buttington hall where a tractor got hit back in 2013 too

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had some sympathy for the farmer, until he started slagging off the Signallers with his 'look up from Facebook or the paper' comment, and it is surely not unreasonable for the Signaller to ask the crossing user to confirm where they are; Especially as, since the farmer says, mistakes have been made. Hopefully Network Rail can invite the farmer to the controlling signalling centre, so that he can gain a better understanding of the size and complexity, often with numerous LCs, of the area for which one person is responsible, and the NR staff would also gain an appreciation of the farmer's issue, and maybe even build a constructive relationship.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, caradoc said:

I had some sympathy for the farmer, until he started slagging off the Signallers with his 'look up from Facebook or the paper' comment, and it is surely not unreasonable for the Signaller to ask the crossing user to confirm where they are; Especially as, since the farmer says, mistakes have been made. Hopefully Network Rail can invite the farmer to the controlling signalling centre, so that he can gain a better understanding of the size and complexity, often with numerous LCs, of the area for which one person is responsible, and the NR staff would also gain an appreciation of the farmer's issue, and maybe even build a constructive relationship.

 

 

Although I agree that the facebook/paper comment was unnecessary, I got the impression that

the policy of the user asking the signaller where they were, was a NR instigated protocol.

Therefore, it would seem that he had a right to be a bit miffed, because the protocol was not 

being followed, and it's his life at risk.

A much better attitude than 'I can't see anything, I'm going anyway'!

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a bit wary about the "I was here before" argument which is always dragged out by certain road users... Yes you were there before, but you didn't have that monstrosity you are driving and towing... Trains going faster is progress, same as your tractor and the gear it tows...

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

Although I agree that the facebook/paper comment was unnecessary, I got the impression that

the policy of the user asking the signaller where they were, was a NR instigated protocol.

Therefore, it would seem that he had a right to be a bit miffed, because the protocol was not 

being followed, and it's his life at risk.

A much better attitude than 'I can't see anything, I'm going anyway'!

It is certainly poor practice for the signaller to not confirm the location. Especially since they presumably have several similar locations. Wasn't there an incident reported much earlier in this thread, where there was an accident caused by confusion about the location?

 

Yes it would be good public relations to invite the farmer to the centre, so he can see how the place operates.

But it would be a good idea to ensure that papers and smart phones are out of sight on the day. Don't want to confirm his suspicions!

Do signallers visit such crossings, so they can see from the other point of view?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 of one half a dozen of the other.

The crossing user refuses to say where he is so the signaller is unable to confirm.

The sigaller won't confirm where they have received a call from, so the user can confirm.

 

Easily resolved with a bit of common sense from both sides.  Only takes one of them to state the location. The best person to do so is the one making the call, they know where they are. or at least think they are. 

 

The risk with the farrmer asking the signaller where he is that the famer just agrees with whatever is stated without actually listening, after all the signaller can see where he is, who's to doubt their word?

 

For instance .

 

"Which crossing am I at?"

 

"Lea Green No 2"

 

" Yes, I'm at Lea Green, Can I cross?"

 

The answer is yes, but the farmer only heard Lea Green and is actually at Lea Green Hall, 7 miles away.  No clear understanding reached, No elimination of equipment fault or human error, just a half a conversation in which neither side has listened properly. 

 

Now consider this

 

""Hello signaller I want to cross the line with my tractor and crop sprayer"

 

"Which crossing are you at?"

 

" Lea Green "

 

" Which Lea Green crossing? "

 

"Lea Green Hall"

 

Now if the signaller has Lea Green No2 as the location being called from, further action can be taken to make things safe, as something has obviously  gone wrong here. Either the user is confused, or the equipment is faulty in some way

 

The onus is on the signaller to ensure the safety of the crossing user and the trains. The farmer taking charge of the conversation removes that

 

Perhaps the farmer could visit the signalbox in the middle of harvest season when there are hundreds of such calls every day and it is critical to get these things right as well as do all the other signalling stuff. 

 

Easy and safest answer is to close the crossing and the farmer goes the long way round by the local roads and then he wouldn't have to cross 5 times to cross once.

 

Seems he already has the gates open though.

 

Andy

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SM42 said:

........ 

 

" Lea Green "

 

" Which Lea Green crossing? "

 

"Lea Green Hall"

 

Now if the signaller has Lea Green No2 as the location ........

 

Perhaps every crossing should have a unique - say - four digit number such that "Lea Green" is totally different from "Lea Green Hall" and the signaller insists on name AND number being quoted there would be little scope for confusion ......... yeah, more hassle all round BUT !

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Hobby said:

I was a bit wary about the "I was here before" argument which is always dragged out by certain road users... Yes you were there before, but you didn't have that monstrosity you are driving and towing... Trains going faster is progress, same as your tractor and the gear it tows...

If you only want half as much food on the supermarket shelves we’ll stop spraying and the beasties can eat what you don’t get........do you want to eat or get to your destination 10 minutes earlier.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Perhaps every crossing should have a unique - say - four digit number such that "Lea Green" is totally different from "Lea Green Hall" and the signaller insists on name AND number being quoted there would be little scope for confusion ......... yeah, more hassle all round BUT !

 

 

I see that as an added complication that could lead to further misunderstanding and frustration .

The number of times I hear  a 4 digit code read back with numbers mixed up is quite common. Even three consecutive numbers can cause problems

 

For instance this week I have had 895 read back as 859 and  3110 as 3101. Even one person giving the same 4 digit number in three different orders in one conversation.  Was it 7153, 7531 or 7135? and they had it written down in front of them

 

You really do need to listen very carefully. 

 

Lea Green is different from Lea Green Hall, but the Lea Green is the bit that sticks. It's familiar, the bit at the end is overlooked by the brain that siezes on the familiar and discards the seemingly irrelevant.

 

Our brains do things like this all the time. How many farmers have been trained to be aware of these things and to double check everything?

 

Andy

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

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

I was a bit wary about the "I was here before" argument which is always dragged out by certain road users... Yes you were there before, but you didn't have that monstrosity you are driving and towing... Trains going faster is progress, same as your tractor and the gear it tows...

 

I suspect that it would take just as long with a horse and cart, with similar or perhaps even worse risks due to the nature of the animal, so the 'there were no tractors then' argument really does not hold water.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Perhaps every crossing should have a unique - say - four digit number such that "Lea Green" is totally different from "Lea Green Hall" and the signaller insists on name AND number being quoted there would be little scope for confusion ......... yeah, more hassle all round BUT !

This is already done with bridges, which have a plate with a unique reference.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Install wig-wag lights as on a normal highway crossing. I know the initial cost would be high but not as high as if a train struck one of the enormous agricultural machines you see nowadays. Another alternative would be electrically powered gates operated remotely by a button in the tractor and tied into the track circuits so that the gates only open when it is safe to do so.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, PhilJ W said:

Install wig-wag lights as on a normal highway crossing. I know the initial cost would be high but not as high as if a train struck one of the enormous agricultural machines you see nowadays. Another alternative would be electrically powered gates operated remotely by a button in the tractor and tied into the track circuits so that the gates only open when it is safe to do so.

 

Or, gates that are shut to road traffic, operated by sensors (that detect any vehicle),

but linked to the track sensors, so that they open automatically only when there is

no train approaching and it's safe. Still cheaper than the damage and cost of delays.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think the point the farmer is trying to make is that by the signaller identifying the crossing first he or she becomes fully aware of where the farmer is. Less room for error, a lower chance of a tragic mistake being made. 

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

Or, gates that are shut to road traffic, operated by sensors (that detect any vehicle),

but linked to the track sensors, so that they open automatically only when there is

no train approaching and it's safe. Still cheaper than the damage and cost of delays.

Except that as such sensors detect any vehicle, they cannot distinguish between say a motorbike and a slow tractor pulling a large load, which would take a much longer time to traverse the crossing.  You would need the additional sensors - like the “Daleks” fitted to crossings in Norfolk - that also scan that the crossing is clear before allowing a train through.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Hobby said:

I was a bit wary about the "I was here before" argument which is always dragged out by certain road users... Yes you were there before, but you didn't have that monstrosity you are driving and towing... Trains going faster is progress, same as your tractor and the gear it tows...

It might be a 'monstrosity', but such a thing is more likely to derail a train, than a horse and cart of old. The results for a horse and cart and it's driver would be dire, compared to a big steam loco.

 

Fact is modern equipment is far more dangerous at a level crossing, than it was previously. In the trains case, it is likely to be going faster and quieter.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SM42 said:

 

 

I see that as an added complication that could lead to further misunderstanding and frustration .

The number of times I hear  a 4 digit code read back with numbers mixed up is quite common. Even three consecutive numbers can cause problems

 

For instance this week I have had 895 read back as 859 and  3110 as 3101. Even one person giving the same 4 digit number in three different orders in one conversation.  Was it 7153, 7531 or 7135? and they had it written down in front of them

 

You really do need to listen very carefully. 

 

Lea Green is different from Lea Green Hall, but the Lea Green is the bit that sticks. It's familiar, the bit at the end is overlooked by the brain that siezes on the familiar and discards the seemingly irrelevant.

 

Our brains do things like this all the time. How many farmers have been trained to be aware of these things and to double check everything?

 

Andy

I did say AS WELL AS - so "Lea Green 1234" couldn't be confused with "Lea Green Hall  7890" however garbled the numbers became. ( You could even add a check digit at the end to flag-up any error.)

523_15.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

If you only want half as much food on the supermarket shelves we’ll stop spraying and the beasties can eat what you don’t get........do you want to eat or get to your destination 10 minutes earlier.

 

I am well aware why they have such equipment and reasons it's used, I do not feel it needed a lecture which is the way that comes across. Progress means many things and I was simply commenting on the "I was here first" comment by the farmer.

 

 

Going back to subject, and asking because I am not sure of the answer, don't they have a plaque with the proper name of the level crossing next to the phone? I can understand the protocol of the crossing user saying where they are first, same as it is for an emergency call where the caller identifies themselves and location first. As others have said a trip to the signalling centre/box would work wonders for both sides!

Edited by Hobby
  • Like 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...