Jump to content
 

Level crossing stupidity...


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, melmerby said:

It doesn't stop them now.

Yes I know that, as you know full well, that wasn't what I was discussing.

 

I thought that the whole intended purpose of 'self drive' vehicles was to save money by having a safer driver at the wheel. But it seems that is no longer the current aim, as recent cases have come to light, where the driverless vehicle has made a mistake and has been corrected by the derogatory named 'steering wheel attendant'.

 

So it seems like the fully licenced and trained on special vehicles driver, is NOT about to be made permanently redundant any time soon. Nor too will parents be able to send their kids off to school alone, on a computer controlled vehicle.

 

Instead we are going to have someone sitting in the drivers seat, holding the wheel and ready on whatever means to activate an emergency stop, yet most of the time, doing precisely NOTHING.

How do you prevent boredom/falling asleep?

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

What happens if a monoglot Welsh speaker phones up from a level crossing in Wales and the signaller speaks only English?

 

The working assumption by the British state is that EVERYONE living in the UK since childhood will have a basic understanding of the English language - it been required learning in all Welsh schools for a start!

 

As such its rather difficult to believe that a Welsh person would not be able to understand a 'No, do not cross' message at a level crossing even if they did spend their entire lives conversing in Welsh.

 

10 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Yes, I understand the point about the legal basis for level crossings but that does not mean that things should not change.

 

 

I don't believe anyone has said things shouldn't change - the point is its not something the railway industry has the ability to deliver.

 

Take a look at Bridge bashes for example and how its only in recent years has the requirement for metric measurements been added to warning / prohibition signage! Before that it needed the secretary of state to approve every single sign with metric measurements on it because thats what the LAW said was required. Given how HGV traffic from the Europe increased from the mid 1990s you would think its a change that should have been made much earlier - yet we had to wait 30 years for Whitehall to catch up.

 

Similarly the 'drive on the left' signs which appear upon leaving the ports of Dover, Newhaven, etc - They usually have French and German on them when in reality most drivers are from Eastern Europe so Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian would be far more useful!

 

A few years ago there was supposed to be some sort of joint commission involving the Law society, the Home Office, the DfT and the rail industry looking at the whole legislative environment around level crossings with a view to simplifying things. From what I remember it all sort of died of death / got deferred / ignored as more pressing (politically) matters rose to prominence with the end result being some sort of vague statement that it wasn't really necessary.

 

 

 

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

  • RMweb Premium

"yet we had to wait 30 years for Whitehall to catch up". Exactly. I don't think we are disagreeing at all on this. The question is whether those in the industry (and others) can do anything to speed things up and to make it clear to those in power that it is not acceptable to make "some sort of vague statement that it wasn't really necessary". But I admit that I don't know how to achieve such a thing.

Mine was a hypothetical question, but in Wales public bodies have a duty to be able to communicate in Welsh. Hence my comment about the Welsh Language Commissioner. But that is a sidetrack in the greater scheme of things.

Of course one disadvantage in Wales (and I assume a similar situation in Scotland) is that for the foreign driver arriving at a crossing there is a whole lot of Welsh (or Gaelic) verbiage above the English verbiage making it even more likely that the driver will miss any important bits - if they are actually there.

While of course English is the official language of England, I think the fact that it is spoken so widely throughout the world tends to make us complacent. But additionally, the wider its use becomes the more it varies around the world, which can also lead to serious misunderstandings. A trivial example, but "coffee cake" in America means cake eaten with coffee not cake with a coffee flavour! But if usages vary in things related to safety it can become dangerous without anyone realising - rather akin to "behind" as mentioned above. And of course when the Channel Tunnel opened this issue was realised because there were words which in English and French had completely different meanings (eg attend), so a specific vocabulary had to be developed.

But the essential point is that we need brief. clear signage whatever language it is in, and we currently do not have that, for reasons explained.

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 28/04/2021 at 11:42, martin_wynne said:

 

If it's an approved script, it can be a pre-recorded message.

 

Martin.

Ok so a foreign National picks up the phone and hears an English message, french, German, Spanish, Romanian, Lithuanian, Polish, Bulgarian, Czech, Hungarian, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Syrian, Libian, Afghan ?

 

And then he happens to be an indigenous Mexican! (Just to be clear they don’t all just speak Spanish)

 

It’s already an issue keeping information concise, and as I said before, the onus in law in most countries is on the road user to understand the traffic laws of the country they are driving in, in the language provided. There are numerous apps and phrase books to enable that. 
 

We cannot accommodate every nationality that may turn up it would get ridiculous. 

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Hobby said:

It's clear that I'm on my own on this,

 

You  are not on your own.  You made a very legitimate observation that the word "No" could be misinterpreted as "Yes" by speakers of certain languages.  I was shocked by the response which seems to imply that it's better legal protection for the signalman in the event that such a person then caused a level crossing accident.  

 

A common sense response that I would have given, would be that you made a very good point and perhaps the rule makers could consider how to address that very real issue.

 

I know I am treading on dangerous ground by mentioning common sense.  I did mention it once before but I think I got away with it.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

A common sense response that I would have given, would be that you made a very good point and perhaps the rule makers could consider how to address that very real issue.

 

 

As any lawyer will tell you there is no such thing as 'common sense'

 

Thanks to British society having gone down the United States route of using the Legal system to redress all woes it then follows that no organisation can ever use 'common sense' as justification for any particular stance, signage or as the basis for its rule book.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

 I was shocked by the response which seems to imply that it's better legal protection for the signalman in the event that such a person then caused a level crossing accident. 

 

 

Given the legislative environment - including the rules on signage on the public highway (which MUST be in English  AND Welsh or Gaelic where applicable) why would you think anything different applies to the spoken word.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
57 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

"yet we had to wait 30 years for Whitehall to catch up". Exactly. I don't think we are disagreeing at all on this. The question is whether those in the industry (and others) can do anything to speed things up and to make it clear to those in power that it is not acceptable to make "some sort of vague statement that it wasn't really necessary".

 

If only....

 

Brexit and now this wretched Pandemic have rather elbowed out more mundane / 'boring' (as far as Politicians are concerned) matters. Doesn't help we have a stupid adversarial political system which encourages point scoring and an excessive focus on tribal issues rather than getting things done.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Given the legislative environment - including the rules on signage on the public highway (which MUST be in English  AND Welsh or Gaelic where applicable) why would you think anything different applies to the spoken word.

 

Phil I would have thought that preventing an accident would be preferable to letting it happen, whatever the legal protection.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Phil I would have thought that preventing an accident would be preferable to letting it happen, whatever the legal protection.

 

 

From a human perspective yes - from a legal position no.

 

It has been found that some are afraid to offer first aid in case they get it wrong and get sued - although the UK authorities have said this wouldn't happen, I believe it has occurred in the USA.

 

Lawyers are masters at turning black into white and once a signaller departs from the script then you can be sure the legal profession will try and use that against them if the worst does happen.

 

Its a shame its got to this stage - but if society at large wants to go down the US route then the railway and its staff cannot be immune to that.

 

 

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

  • RMweb Premium

A question - and with apologies if it has already been asked and answered in the past 235 pages but Search suggested it hasn't - based on recent changes both locally and nationally.

 

At what point does the extended down-time of level-crossing barriers, which is now commonplace due to their remote operation (in most locations) and the requirements of the signalling system, become an incentive to some to disobey the rules?  

 

As an example the crossing here has very recently had its oversight moved from Feltham to Basingstoke but was originally controlled from a now-demolished signal box adjacent to the road it blocks.  Those with longer memories tell me the old gates were wound by hand as a train approached and that the train driver would normally sight a Stop aspect on the signal in the rear until the gates were proved to be locked across the road.  The delay to road traffic might have been 2 minutes.  As full barriers supervised by cctv under Feltham the barriers were lowered around 3 minutes before a train was due in order to clear the signals though train passengers could tell when they were not lowered in a timely manner because the train wold slow and sometimes stop two signals short of the crossing.  

 

Since control was transferred to Basingstoke the barriers now lower around four - five minutes before the train arrives allegedly because an alarm is triggered on the panel when it departs the previous station and in order to ensure the train driver receives "proceed" aspects at all signals rather than "risk" SPADding a red.  This means that the increased volume of road traffic which is a general feature compared with earlier years is now being delayed for much longer than was previously the case.  The crossing is protected by full barriers but there have been instances of pedestrian and cyclists jumping over because they have become impatient, can see no train coming and cannot see the signal aspects.  There have also been cases of motorists using the station "Help Point" in an attempt to contact the controlling signaller due to the extended waiting times; it doesn't connect to the signaller but to the nearest staffed station who have no control over the level crossing.  

 

Thoughts?  

Edited by Gwiwer
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

A question - and with apologies if it has already been asked and answered in the past 235 pages but Search suggested it hasn't - based on recent changes both locally and nationally.

 

At what point does the extended down-time of level-crossing barriers, which is now commonplace due to their remote operation (in most locations) and the requirements of the signalling system, become an incentive to some to disobey the rules?  

 

As an example the crossing here has very recently had its oversight moved from Feltham to Basingstoke but was originally controlled from a now-demolished signal box adjacent to the road it blocks.  Those with longer memories tell me the old gates were wound by hand as a train approached and that the train driver would normally sight a Stop aspect on the signal in the rear until the gates were proved to be locked across the road.  The delay to road traffic might have been 2 minutes.  As full barriers supervised by cctv under Feltham the barriers were lowered around 3 minutes before a train was due in order to clear the signals though train passengers could tell when they were not lowered in a timely manner because the train wold slow and sometimes stop two signals short of the crossing.  

 

Since control was transferred to Basingstoke the barriers now lower around four - five minutes before the train arrives allegedly because an alarm is triggered on the panel when it departs the previous station.  This means that the increased volume of road traffic which is a general feature compared with earlier years is now being delayed for much longer than was previously the case.  The crossing is protected by full barriers but there have been instances of pedestrian and cyclists jumping over because they have become impatient, can see no train coming and cannot see the signal aspects.  There have also been cases of motorists using the station "Help Point" in an attempt to contact the controlling signaller due to the extended waiting times; it doesn't connect to the signaller but to the nearest staffed station who have no control over the level crossing.  

 

Thoughts?  

 

OK there are a number of factors at play here including:-

 

Technically railway policy is to give drivers green signals whenever possible as this removes the risk of a SPAD (or a TPWS intervention for going too fast on the approach to a red). If you have 4 aspect signalling then that means the trigger to lower the crossing is going to be 4 signals back.

 

With the introduction of more defensive driving techniques / policies by TOCs having green signals also encourages the train to pass through quicker

 

Now if the crossing has an 'auto lower' setup or worse, an Obstacle detector rather than CCTV then the signaller has very little ability* or no ability to influence when the barriers lower which can increase the down time considerably from the old method where the signaller made the decision to activate the crossing.

 

* The whole point of auto lower systems is to free up the signaller to do other things like signal trains, deal with line blockage requests, etc and thus they can potentially control a bigger area.

 

Another factor can be if signallers have difficulty lowering the barriers because motorists / pedestrians don't stop as soon as the red lights show - they may compensate for this by dropping the barriers earlier.

 

The other factor as regards the area previously controlled by Feltham is staff similarity. A signaller who has worked Feltham for ages will perhaps have a different outlook as to when the crossing should be lowered compared to a new recruit starting fresh at Basingstoke ROC.

 

 

 

As for 'disobeying the rules' given the nature of manned barrier crossings (signals held at red until railway is completely fenced off from the road by barriers and crossing proved to be clear) its difficult to see how 'disobeying the rules' as it were would be dangerous

Edited by phil-b259
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

 

 

Thoughts?  

It is taken into account from a risk management perspective,  excessive downtime can result in increased risk, so can be accounted for when designing signalling systems. Note that I use the can, this does not always happen, nor are operating procedures always amended.

 

There are no hard and fast rules, so decisions are made by human beings who are all fallible in some direction or another. Some people put the speed of the train and the experience of those on board over expecting drivers to obey the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, 96701 said:

It is taken into account from a risk management perspective,  excessive downtime can result in increased risk, so can be accounted for when designing signalling systems. Note that I use the can, this does not always happen, nor are operating procedures always amended.

 

There are no hard and fast rules, so decisions are made by human beings who are all fallible in some direction or another. Some people put the speed of the train and the experience of those on board over expecting drivers to obey the rules.

 

Downtime is less of an issue (safety wise) for Manned barrier crossings which close off the railway and are not as easy to misuse as AHBs or the various forms of user worked crossings

 

That said if there is no footbridge then you do get some pedestrians jumping over the barriers so rather than wait. They might also not want to stop when the red lights start flashing even though Wig-Wags do legally apply to pedestrians too, not just vehicles.

 

You can also find it harder to lower the barriers in the first place as drivers don't stop when the red lights start going - but that in itself can be mitigated by red light cameras and a robust enforcement of any transgressions.

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
29 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

At what point does the extended down-time of level-crossing barriers, which is now commonplace due to their remote operation (in most locations) and the requirements of the signalling system, become an incentive to some to disobey the rules? 

For some people about as long as their reaction time takes for them to see barriers down (or lights flashing).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

At what point does the extended down-time of level-crossing barriers, which is now commonplace due to their remote operation (in most locations) and the requirements of the signalling system, become an incentive to some to disobey the rules?  

The down time has been increased in recent years where crossings are within the overlap of signals following the investigation of an incident. The RAIB gave recommendations of addressing it and its mandated now. 
These changes are in response to incidents and often because of how modern users no longer respect the absolute stop of the lights. I can think of one incident where the car hit overtook three other cars without attempting to use the phones as those drivers stated in the investigation. 
How many here know that not even a Police officer can wave you by a flashing red at a crossing?

OD crossings were partly designed to address this increasing impatience. 
 

42 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

A common sense response that I would have given, would be that you made a very good point and perhaps the rule makers could consider how to address that very real issue.

It’s been addressed and re-assessed many times and updated to make it as safe as possible but still people find ways miss or ignore the info. 
Do those wanting multi languages and pages of information read their pages of instructions thoroughly for every appliance they buy? Unfortunately it’s human nature to shortcut so the info needs to be as brief as possible to get the message across before they get bored. 
The law and years of common sense has dictated that the current method is considered the safest with current understanding and it’s the law that judges serious incidents so it is common sense to adhere to that. 
This isn’t to say it won’t continue to be reviewed and will change again and again. 
Blair do you feel you need to speak or have a prerecorded message in every language that a customer boarding your train might use to warn of a large gap at certain platforms? 
The tannoy would never stop. 
 

In our box we have well over 50 phone lines to crossings, signals, points plus internal and external lines and the GSMR system, there is no way we can start being multi linguists sending umpteen pre-recorded messages to crossing users, there are too many other demands to regulating, providing line blocks, failiures etc. It would be a distraction from other safety critical duties to spend so much time on individual crossing calls. 
 

We already struggle to deal with the higher number of calls for increasing safety demanded by not working on open lines and there isn’t the money to employ extra manpower to facilitate these ideas. 
 

I personally agree with the law as it stands that the primary responsibility lies with the road user for obeying and understanding the traffic laws if they drive in a country. It is our job to give protection when asked and in emergency and until someone invents a reliable voice recognition system that can give the right language response first I personally believe these multi lingual pre recorded messages would be more dangerous due to well proven human traits. The current system is safe for calls if a clear understanding can’t be reached because you can caution to deal with it with minimum distraction from all the other tasks we are doing. Performance may take a small hit but it is safe. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

Ok so a foreign National picks up the phone and hears an English message, french, German, Spanish, Romanian, Lithuanian, Polish, Bulgarian, Czech, Hungarian, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Syrian, Libian, Afghan ?

 

And then he happens to be Mexican!

 

It’s already an issue keeping information concise, and as I said before, the onus in law in most countries is on the road user to understand the traffic laws of the country they are driving in, in the language provided. There are numerous apps and phrase books to enable that. 
 

We cannot accommodate every nationality that may turn up it would get ridiculous. 

Almost with you 100% with your post until you said Mexican. Sorry to be pedantic, but the most widely used language in Mexico is Spanish. However, if the Mexican you use as an example was one of the indigenous minority, then I'm with you all the way. :jester:

  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, as I've said a few times the example I gave was simply to point out that society changes over time and that institutions such as the railways need to constantly review their procedures to ensure that they still meet the requirements such as keeping the railway safe for all. 

 

Unfortunately some of you took the example far too literally as you have just done rather the the wider issue it was highlighting. 

 

We on board have had to change our approaches to our passengers a lot over the years to cover a changing society as well as legislation, but the people who interact with the railways aren't just passengers. 

Edited by Hobby
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Gwiwer said:

A question - and with apologies if it has already been asked and answered in the past 235 pages but Search suggested it hasn't - based on recent changes both locally and nationally.

 

At what point does the extended down-time of level-crossing barriers, which is now commonplace due to their remote operation (in most locations) and the requirements of the signalling system, become an incentive to some to disobey the rules?  

 

 

 

Thoughts?  

I may have answered this previously way nearer the start to this thread.

 

I was a member of a newsgroup in Australia, where the subject of stuck railway crossing boom gates came up.

 

There was a woman, who I think was studying to be a lawyer, took the view that 'after a period of time', it should be 'deemed that the crossing gates had failed and the motorists should be fully entitled to drive around them'! The railway could be charged with false imprisonment or some nonsense, for longer periods.

 

I asked two questions.

1/ How long do you think it should be until the gates have deemed to have 'failed'?

2/ How do you know that a train hadn't broken down, just out of sight around a bend. The crew had got the train going again and was now approaching at high speed!

 

Funny she never did answer those questions!

Edited by kevinlms
Wrong word.
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Just quick comments re the photos of the crossing near Craven Arms. Nice, clear and brief signage. I was surprised when I first went there how Welsh the village is. There are much more "English" villages the other side of the border. So in that case the use of bilingual signs makes sense. Is that crossing controlled still from a signal box at Craven Arms station? I know there was one there until recently. And where are the various crossings on the Central Wales/Heart of Wales line controlled from? Just curious.

Back on the main topic, I think that despite our different approaches to the subject there is general agreement that the legislation needs updating, but that seems unlikely to happen. So the challenge is to make the current system work as well as possible in a changing world.

Jonathan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, iands said:

Almost with you 100% with your post until you said Mexican. Sorry to be pedantic, but the most widely used language in Mexico is Spanish. However, if the Mexican you use as an example was one of the indigenous minority, then I'm with you all the way. :jester:

Should have used a Brazilian (Portugese speaker) far more common:jester:

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Just quick comments re the photos of the crossing near Craven Arms. Nice, clear and brief signage. I was surprised when I first went there how Welsh the village is. There are much more "English" villages the other side of the border. So in that case the use of bilingual signs makes sense. Is that crossing controlled still from a signal box at Craven Arms station? I know there was one there until recently. And where are the various crossings on the Central Wales/Heart of Wales line controlled from? Just curious.

Back on the main topic, I think that despite our different approaches to the subject there is general agreement that the legislation needs updating, but that seems unlikely to happen. So the challenge is to make the current system work as well as possible in a changing world.

Jonathan

Pantyffynon.... (near Ammanford)

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

3 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

You made a very legitimate observation that the word "No" could be misinterpreted as "Yes" by speakers of certain languages. 

 

If the person attempting use the LC does not even understand the English word 'no', they cannot communicate with the Signaller at all - ie to state where they are, what they are crossing with, how long they need, and to confirm when they are clear ? 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
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...