Jump to content
 

Level crossing stupidity...


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours 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 !


already been done on the Cambrian under RETB, every crossing numbered, 196 alone between shrewsbury and Machynlleth, under ertms a lot have been shut but there are still numbered signs at the crossings which have remained open, for example ‘22’ is still there which I know to be hanselmans crossings, the signallers tend to ask have you passed crossing number XX  and the name when they need to know your exact location, for example if someone has requested to use a crossing,  ertms can’t tell the signaller your exact location ‘on a map’ as it were but does show them the trains meterage from point zero of the system (shrewsbury end of the line) 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

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!

That’s more like it :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Neil said:

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. 

 

The whole point of that video is to show some sort indignation when things don't go your way (very popular nowadays) when either side of the conversation could have been sensible and sorted it out. 

 

For the farmer to start the conversation as a quiz : Where am I? is not helpful or conducive to a sensible dialogue. It automatically raises the hackles and introduces an element of doubt as to his ability to use the crossing in a safe manner.

If you don't know where you are how do you expect me to trust you to do as you are required to cross the line if you can't get a grasp on the most basic of information such as your location?

 

(Let's not forget that everyone else who calls a signaller from trackside  will announce invariably who and where they are at the start. Why a crossing user should have been  given a different instruction, I don't know)

 

The signaller to react with,  well you tell me, causes a defensive response from the crossing user and if you don't know I'm not telling you as you should know that.

 

Either side could have resolved this without getting on their high horse.  Now both sides think the other is either reckless or incompetent

 

Had the farmer announced where he was at the outset, problem solved.  Had the signaller, (having not had that location information at the outset,) confirmed where the farmer was, problem solved

 

I suspect the farmer had only one thing to deal with: crossing the line, the signaller possibly had a  bit more on their plate.

 

Net result, is frustration on both sides. What was the farmer going to do now? Sit there  all night or take the risk?

 

I sometimes despair how people can turn a simple task into something so complicated, especially when it would have been so easy to have not created a problem in the first place.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The instructions that the farmer has been given should match the box instructions so that there is no doubt as to who should say what when. It is also my understanding that the signaller should take the lead in safety related conversations.

 

If neither of these things happened, I'm with the farmer.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 96701 said:

The instructions that the farmer has been given should match the box instructions so that there is no doubt as to who should say what when. It is also my understanding that the signaller should take the lead in safety related conversations.

 

Agree, but we only have the farmer's version of events, presented from his point of view  ! And by requesting the user to state where they are, the Signaller is taking the lead. 

Also the Signaller's voice comms will be regularly monitored and assessed.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SM42 said:

I suspect the farmer had only one thing to deal with: crossing the line, the signaller possibly had a  bit more on their plate.

 

 

That's probably a little unfair. I suspect the farmer also has plenty of things on his plate to deal with - tending the land/crops/livestock, preparing products for market, running a business as an entrepreneur and so on. He may well have been mainly concerned at the particular time with crossing the line but the signaller too would be concerned with mainly dealing with the phone call once he answered it. Most people tend do one thing at a time. 

 

 

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Agree, but we only have the farmer's version of events, presented from his point of view  ! And by requesting the user to state where they are, the Signaller is taking the lead. 

Also the Signaller's voice comms will be regularly monitored and assessed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And his 'version of events' strongly suggests that it was NR's idea to get the signaller 

to start the information exchange, to encourage absolute focus on the caller!

 

Which some of the previous posters seem to have missed!

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

  • RMweb Premium

It seems clear to me that there are good reasons why the farmer was told to ask the signaller to confirm his location first.

 

1/ The signaller will have to check which phone the farmer is using; this will firmly fix the crossing location for the signaller. Extra clarity when there may be distractions is a good thing.

2/ It is more important that the signaller knows which crossing the farmer intends to use than the farmer. The signaller needs to be able to work out if it's safe to cross at a particular location, the farmer just responds to the instructions given.

3/ The person using the crossing may be new or distracted and not give the correct location, if the signaller is distracted too they may not pick up on this and give a false all clear.

 

In all of this it appears as though the farmer was doing what he was told to do, his complaint being that the signallers didn't always follow the procedure as he understood it.

 

I've noticed previously in this thread an over eagerness to defend the railway and its staff at times when their actions seem pretty questionable. I can understand that we would want the railway to be a paragon of safety. Sometimes this desire clouds judgements but we should resist the temptation to view the railway as infallible, it's dangerous to see it so. Safety is built on honest, clinical assessments of the facts.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/06/2020 at 20:09, Neil said:

I've noticed previously in this thread an over eagerness to defend the railway and its staff at times when their actions seem pretty questionable. I can understand that we would want the railway to be a paragon of safety. Sometimes this desire clouds judgements but we should resist the temptation to view the railway as infallible, it's dangerous to see it so. Safety is built on honest, clinical assessments of the facts.

 

 

To be honest the actions of both are a little questionable if the account is a 100% accurate reflection of events free from exaggeration for the audience. Either of the sides in the conversation could have easily solved the problem, but both decided to be obstinate it appears.

 

We don't know what exact instruction the crossing user was given on using the new phone. Perhaps they were told to make sure the signaller knew which crossing they were intending to use. That could go either way:  they ask the signaller or they tell the signaller.

 

Either way a mess has resulted that has the potential to introduce more risk into the system by crossing users just not calling in future  as it's too much hassle

 

Andy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Sorry Andy but there is a crucial difference in who confirms the location first. It's safer for the reasons I outlined above if the signaller does this. I can therefore believe that this was the instruction given by NR to the farmer, who rightly points out it's his neck on the line if it all goes wrong. We should be applauding the farmer for sticking to his guns and following this procedure;  we would all like the railway to be as safe as possible.

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing would be for the farmer, rather than posting a sarcastic rant on the internet, to make a complaint to Network Rail (although perhaps he has already done that ?), so that the voice comms can be checked and any resulting improvements made. And, as I said earlier, a visit to the controlling SC would give the farmer a better idea of what the Signaller has to contend with, and also give NR staff an understanding of the farmer's issues.

 

Edited by caradoc
Spelling mistake
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, big jim said:

Hopefully the link will work

 

Alsager crossing out of Use for 12 weeks following a crash on Monday night!

 

https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/truck-crashes-alsager-level-crossing-18514539?utm_source=sharebar&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sharebar

Its not out of use, it is being manually signalled with some resulting delays.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Neil said:

Sorry Andy but there is a crucial difference in who confirms the location first. It's safer for the reasons I outlined above if the signaller does this. I can therefore believe that this was the instruction given by NR to the farmer, who rightly points out it's his neck on the line if it all goes wrong. We should be applauding the farmer for sticking to his guns and following this procedure;  we would all like the railway to be as safe as possible.

 

But sticking to his guns hasn't solved the problem has it? My point that either could solve the problem quite easily stands

 

He wants to cross but won't say where, the signaller won't give him permission till he does and refuses to confirm where the farmer is.

 

The result we see in an on line video. The farmer already appears to have the gates open, what is his next move?.

 

Revert to Stop look and Listen?  If he does where does he look and listen from? The driving seat?

 

How does he listen above the noise of the tractor engine? Where is the front end of his tractor whilst he is looking from the driving seat?

 

The apparent obstinance of both parties has created a potential risk which with a bit of sense and communicating clearly between them without the ego clash would have made everyone's life just a little bit better. Both had the information required to facilitate the safe crossing of the railway. Neither wanted to divulge that to the other.

 

We are not party to the procedure that was outlined when the phone was installed , we only have one side of the story.

 

To me this is a mess and both sides are equally culplable. Caradoc has the right idea. Something has gone wrong here. We don't know where, but starting a complaint rolling will get the whole thing looked at from the crossing procedure (there is obviously a conflict of understanding here)  through to the events on the day.

 

This is not about blame, it's about making things as safe a possible

 

Andy

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Neil said:

Sorry Andy but there is a crucial difference in who confirms the location first. It's safer for the reasons I outlined above if the signaller does this. I can therefore believe that this was the instruction given by NR to the farmer, who rightly points out it's his neck on the line if it all goes wrong. We should be applauding the farmer for sticking to his guns and following this procedure;  we would all like the railway to be as safe as possible.

 

Sorry Neil

 

The farmer was entirely in the wrong, he should state what crossing he is at when asked to do so by the signaller.  My box has a prompt card near each phone concentrator which states as follows(written as it is written on the card).

 

When receiving a call from a user worked crossing

 

1. State your LOCATION and your ROLE  (Signalller at  Signalbox)

2. Ask and reconfirm WHERE the user is calling from

3.  Ask WHAT they are crossing with

4. HOW LONG will it take them to cross SAFELY

5. REPEAT BACK and CONFIRM with user

 

I can't know for sure until the user tells me which crossing they are ringing from as (occasionally) we have had crossed lines because these crossing phones work over BT lines, they are not dedicated lines ( on 1 occasion a crossing phone rang and there was a lady on the other end phoning from her house saying she had just gone into labour and what should she do!). One location I work has 87 user worked crossings hence the need for the user to TELL ME where he wants to cross so I can cross reference with my chart which tells me the mileage of the crossing and the protecting signals. If the user like this farmer refuses to confirm their location as in point 2 above then I will refuse permission to cross.

 

Ian

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ianwales said:

 

The farmer was entirely in the wrong,

 

I don't think it's fair to categorically state that the farmer is entirely in the wrong, especially if he is asking a question he has been advised to ask. It is for the signaller to explain the situation rather than what appears to be to dogmatically refuse to answer and effectively set up confrontation. It would have been better to have meaningful dialogue than rebuff and have an impasse. Although we don't know the whole truth and content of the conversation, obviously the farmer was pissed off enough with it to make and circulate the video. It doesn't sound like the phone call conversation went well and it certainly could have gone better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

19 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

I don't think it's fair to categorically state that the farmer is entirely in the wrong, especially if he is asking a question he has been advised to ask. It is for the signaller to explain the situation rather than what appears to be to dogmatically refuse to answer and effectively set up confrontation. It would have been better to have meaningful dialogue than rebuff and have an impasse. Although we don't know the whole truth and content of the conversation, obviously the farmer was pissed off enough with it to make and circulate the video. It doesn't sound like the phone call conversation went well and it certainly could have gone better.

 

 

The onus is on the user to tell the signaller what crossing he is ringing from, not for the signaller to lead the user by stating what crossing he thinks he is ringing from, if the user will not for whatever reason tell the signaller which crossing he wishes to use then the signaller will quite rightly refuse permission to cross.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, ianwales said:

 

The onus is on the user to tell the signaller what crossing he is ringing from, not for the signaller to lead the user by stating what crossing he thinks he is ringing from, if the user will not for whatever reason tell the signaller which crossing he wishes to use then the signaller will quite rightly refuse permission to cross.

 

Ian

Not saying either is wrong, but the Farmer did say he was told to ask the signaller which crossing he is at by the NR installation engineer,, so maybe the engineer was wrong?

 

Either way it needs to get sorted.

 

 

 

 

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

18 hours ago, big jim said:


I meant out if use for road users? 

 

Nope, In use for road users as well:

 

"One driver said this morning “I had to wait about 15 minutes. They were controlling people going through there when I was on my way to work at about 8.15am. They were doing a good job of dealing with the traffic.”

 

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

57 minutes ago, ianwales said:

 

The onus is on the user to tell the signaller what crossing he is ringing from, not for the signaller to lead the user by stating what crossing he thinks he is ringing from, if the user will not for whatever reason tell the signaller which crossing he wishes to use then the signaller will quite rightly refuse permission to cross.

 

 

That may be the case, but the quoted procedure looks, like most company procedures and protocols, to be in-house for employees to follow. It's unlikely that the public would be aware of them or be under any obligation or understand the need to follow them. Consequently the onus is on the employee to make the public aware and explain the reasoning rather than simply refuse to provide information. 

 

I don't think it's a matter of apportioning blame but to improve communication, be more proactive and take time to evaluate, respond appropriately and educate. After all we all want to be safe.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, ianwales said:

 

Sorry Neil

 

The farmer was entirely in the wrong, he should state what crossing he is at when asked to do so by the signaller.  My box has a prompt card near each phone concentrator which states as follows(written as it is written on the card).

 

When receiving a call from a user worked crossing

 

1. State your LOCATION and your ROLE  (Signalller at  Signalbox)

2. Ask and reconfirm WHERE the user is calling from

3.  Ask WHAT they are crossing with

4. HOW LONG will it take them to cross SAFELY

5. REPEAT BACK and CONFIRM with user

 

I can't know for sure until the user tells me which crossing they are ringing from as (occasionally) we have had crossed lines because these crossing phones work over BT lines, they are not dedicated lines ( on 1 occasion a crossing phone rang and there was a lady on the other end phoning from her house saying she had just gone into labour and what should she do!). One location I work has 87 user worked crossings hence the need for the user to TELL ME where he wants to cross so I can cross reference with my chart which tells me the mileage of the crossing and the protecting signals. If the user like this farmer refuses to confirm their location as in point 2 above then I will refuse permission to cross.

 

Ian

 

My apologies. I can see why you would need confirmation from the user. It does seem strange that the farmer in the video was given such specific instructions that required him to do the opposite. Do different conditions apply in other locations, dedicated lines rather than BT?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
42 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

Nope, In use for road users as well:

 

"One driver said this morning “I had to wait about 15 minutes. They were controlling people going through there when I was on my way to work at about 8.15am. They were doing a good job of dealing with the traffic.”

 


got a feeling that may have been on the morning of the crash, as it happens I went over it this morning on a train and the whole lot is properly fenced off both sides with 6ft palisade fencing and those big red and white barriers across the whole road, the red lights are flashing but one of the barriers on the Alsager side has totally been removed

  • Informative/Useful 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...