Jump to content
 

Level crossing stupidity...


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I suspect they have a legal right of way so I doubt its an option. 

Yes, it's not easy to shut a crossing. Lots and lots of legal stuff and the need (usually) to provide an alternative access point, either a road and/or bridge, none of which comes cheap. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

There is also a mentality with some Farmers that the land on each side is theirs and do not need to close gates! Found this talking to a agricultural contractor.

 

There was one farmer who removed the gate from its hinges to prevent people closing the gates. 
 

 

Pure stupidity..........we tell our drivers it’s a 8 ton tractor vs 400 tons of anvil.....and your sitting in a plastic cab.

  • Like 6
  • Round of applause 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This talk of gates raises an interesting question. It used to be (relatively) common for there to be ungated level crossings on public roads (hence the 'steam locomotive' sign referred to earlier - 'Level crossing without gates or barriers').

 

So why would gates be necessary on a private crossing? I can understand them where the fields contain livestock, but in many cases the fields either side of the line are arable. Surely in those cases there's no need for gates?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, RJS1977 said:

So why would gates be necessary on a private crossing? I can understand them where the fields contain livestock, but in many cases the fields either side of the line are arable. Surely in those cases there's no need for gates?

Gates may well stop small children ambling onto the railway, they will also stop road vehicles from driving willy nilly across railway lines.

 

Just because a few incidents have occurred with gates does not mean that they should be abandoned.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

So why would gates be necessary on a private crossing? I can understand them where the fields contain livestock, but in many cases the fields either side of the line are arable. Surely in those cases there's no need for gates?

Ungated crossings always had a low speed restriction, with a requirement to check the crossing is clear before crossing, for the trains so totally unsuitable for mainlines and even most secondary lines. 
As 96701 correctly noted the main two are

4 hours ago, 96701 said:

Gates may well stop small children ambling onto the railway, they will also stop road vehicles from driving willy nilly across railway lines.

Imagine a delivery driver or visitor in the dark looking for a house, you’d be surprised how few notice signs and if they do they rarely read them because that’s not what they are looking for. Most incidents with motor vehicles happen because people have ignored the stop and think message the gates help provide. They reinforce the message to be careful or most adults engrossed with a mobile phone would just wander onto the crossing unaware. They also stop horse riders from crossing until they are protected as a suddenly appearing train can cause a horse to panic. 
Gates provide far more safety than any other method. 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Gates provide far more safety than any other method. 

 

Would they be safer if they were set far enough back from the railway that you could open the first one, pass through it and close it behind you before reaching a position of danger? And only then phone the signaller before crossing the line quickly and repeating the process on the other side.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Interesting case recently on French railways at Douzens between Carcassonne and Beziers.Aude - Collision entre un camion et un train à Douzens, la vidéo de l'accident - lindependant.fr

 

Driver had got lost and stopped with his tractor unit wrong side of the barrier while trying to work out his route. Barrier came down between tractor cab and the semi-trailer. He tried to reverse off but the barrier was too strong for him to break through it.

 

For anyone modelling French railways there is a rather characterful little concrete cabin that used to control the crossing.

Edited by Joseph_Pestell
Add link
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to make two suggestions

 

1. Make the users more responsible for the safe use of private crossings so if you dont use it safely you lose it.

2 At the moment Driving Bans can only be imposed by Criminal Prosecution, how about a 'non criminal' route to cancel the licences of those clearly unfit to hold them, eg the R&HDR case driver regularly seen on a mobile phone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Under Irish law, it’s an offence, while driving, to hold your mobile phone in your hand, or support it with another part of the body. ‘Hold’ is the operative word because it makes no difference whether the person ‘holding’ the phone is talking, texting or browsing. The fines for this have changed and if you are caught doing this you must pay an €80 fine as well as 3 penalty points on your licence. 

To specifically address the increasing problem of texting while driving, Irish Law was tightened in 2014.  New road safety regulations stipulate a mandatory court summons and a fine rather than just penalty points,

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

58 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

1. Make the users more responsible for the safe use of private crossings so if you dont use it safely you lose it.

2 At the moment Driving Bans can only be imposed by Criminal Prosecution, how about a 'non criminal' route to cancel the licences of those clearly unfit to hold them, eg the R&HDR case driver regularly seen on a mobile phone.

 

1. That would be virtually impossible, the crossing will be part of the original Act so extremely difficult to change. Also the farmer would be guaranteed to plead "hardship" and pretty much guaranteed to win! Perhaps if there were constant incidents at the same crossing something could be done but it wouldn't be easy. I don't know if NR sue for damages in these cases, perhaps someone from NR could answer that? Such a threat which would affect their insurance so might work...

 

2. It's private land so a driving licence isn't needed for these farm vehicles.

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

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

This talk of gates raises an interesting question. It used to be (relatively) common for there to be ungated level crossings on public roads (hence the 'steam locomotive' sign referred to earlier - 'Level crossing without gates or barriers').

 

So why would gates be necessary on a private crossing? I can understand them where the fields contain livestock, but in many cases the fields either side of the line are arable. Surely in those cases there's no need for gates?

I think the difference in your examples are that the "open" (non-gated) crossings are on public roads. The farmers UWCs (between field and field/farm) are on private land. Different legal requirements and stipulations. A bit of a legal minefield (for both parties) when trying to get things changed concerning crossings. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Under Irish law, it’s an offence, while driving, to hold your mobile phone in your hand, or support it with another part of the body. ‘Hold’ is the operative word because it makes no difference whether the person ‘holding’ the phone is talking, texting or browsing. The fines for this have changed and if you are caught doing this you must pay an €80 fine as well as 3 penalty points on your licence. 

To specifically address the increasing problem of texting while driving, Irish Law was tightened in 2014.  New road safety regulations stipulate a mandatory court summons and a fine rather than just penalty points,

Only 80 Euros? That's nothing, it's up to $1000 in Australia, higher for vehicles such as buses.

Also included as 'holding', is if you have it on the passenger seat and it slides across and touches you as you go around a corner! How exactly they check for that, I do not know.

 

But the fine should make most people think twice! But apparently many people must have money to burn, as many thousands get caught.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Perhaps if some of those deliberately misusing the crossings got prosecuted for wilfully endangering the railway (I forget the exact wording, but it's a serious criminal offence, with a jail sentence), it might encourage the rest to think twice? 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gates are usually required by law, as part of the obligation on railways to fence the line.  There are some exceptions, originally mainly light railways.  Private crossings exist for one reason only - to restore the access rights the land-owner would otherwise have lost when the railway was built, and these crossings fall into two legal categories, either

  • the new railway cut his land in two (an accommodation crossing) or
  • the new railway crossed a private road giving access to his property from the public highway (an occupation crossing)

Provision and maintenance of these crossings was effectively part of the compensation the land-owner was entitled to when the railway was built - along with the value of the land which was purchased (probably  compulsorily) to build the line on.  

 

Access could have provided by the original railway company by building a suitable bridge but it was generally cheaper just to provide a simple crossing.  An accommodation crossing can be closed if the two parcels of land change hands such that they are no longer under the same ownership, because the farmer no longer has the right to drive his animals etc from one half of his field to the other.  As a result, a lot of these crossings have gone.

To close an occupation crossing, it may be necessary to construct an alternative road connecting the property to the highway somewhere else.  The railway could choose to provide a bridge, but the cost of doing so hasn't come down, or the railway could try offering the land-owner money to extinguish his right to cross. 

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

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Would they be safer if they were set far enough back from the railway that you could open the first one, pass through it and close it behind you before reaching a position of danger? And only then phone the signaller before crossing the line quickly and repeating the process on the other side.

No, as how much room do you leave to accommodate trailers etc? There also isn’t enough room on railway land in most cases so you’d end up paying landowners to site gates on their land. The process is phone the Signaller and they will ask what you’re crossing with and how long you need. This way the railway is protected until it is safe to cross.

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Hobby said:

I don't know if NR sue for damages in these cases,

 

I can't speak for NR, but following an accident in 1978 when a motorist stalled on an accommodation crossing, Northern Ireland Railways successfully sued the motorist for damages. That case also paved the way for the settlement of railway passenger injury claims and one railway passenger fatality.

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

  • RMweb Premium

On the BBC website:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56846778

It seems to me to be a lot stronger than the official report. Is that justified?

There is no mention of the greater incidence of users of private crossings not being familiar with the type - eg delivery drivers.

Jonathan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
14 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

There is no mention of the greater incidence of users of private crossings not being familiar with the type - eg delivery drivers.

The idea is the sign should cover that, there has been discussion for a long time over how that is presented and legal requirements often make them longer, hence I guess the focus on the Dft in that story as they mandate the signage. 
We also regularly have to deal with foreign drivers either working their first job here or on an international trip so communicating can be interesting if they do phone up. You end up resorting to NO, wait and call back and occasionally imitating a train! I’ve had to caution a few times as there was no way of getting them to understand call back when clear. 
There’s also the well intentioned parents who get their small child to ring up to learn what they should do. I always ask to speak to the parents to check they aren’t alone and tell them so they know what I’ve said and then tell the child too. That way the kid isn’t able to lead them on by mistake. No sign can cover every situation like those but there are also dyslexic and  illiterate people out there that text signs can be difficult for. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

You end up resorting to NO

 

I'd be very careful if you are speaking to a Czech/Slovak person if you say that as their word for "yes" is "ano" and I speak from experience that "ano" and "no" are very easily confused!

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

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

I'd be very careful if you are speaking to a Czech/Slovak person if you say that as their word for "yes" is "ano" and I speak from experience that "ano" and "no" are very easily confused!

Well there’s no way of telling that ;) we have to rely on the English and that’s what goes on the recorded tapes for the legal backup. The safety net is if someone is totally incomprehensible we caution any approaching train. 

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Hence I mentioned it, you are now! 

But it’s of no use because we have to say no as the requirement. If they can’t understand English to that extent then I have no hope of knowing they are Czech ;) 

  • Agree 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...