Level crossing gate query

[Ray H]

I presume that not all road/rail level crossings were at 90º to each other.

 

I'm considering adding a level crossing to my O gauge layout laid out similarly to the following (where the white strip represents the roadway).

 

 

The red lines indicate where I assume the gates will come to rest at either end of their travel. Again, I presume, that there will only be a single gate either side of the railway track (because I couldn't work out where twin gates each side would pivot.

 

The roadway will only be wide enough to take a single vehicle - e,g, lorry.

 

When the gates are closed across the railway it seems that it would be very easy to drive off the roadway and onto the track.

 

I've seen cattle grids alongside roadways crossing the railway but would this have been the only option or would the road surface be widened between the gates? I presume there would be a fence between the gate end stops on each side of the track.

 

I should add that this is a light railway. Would that make a difference in practice?

 

Thanks.

[DCB]

I suspect if such a minor road over a single track had gates it would turn to cross the rails at a right angle and only one gate per side would be provided.   The gates prevent animals wandering onto the tracks and derailing trains so as this looks like part of a goods yard I doubt gates would have been provided.   Some light railways didn't have crossing gates but I  can't think of any except the unfenced St Combs (?) branch  in Scotland and the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by DCB

[jdsnape]

1 hour ago, Ray H said:

 

 

The red lines indicate where I assume the gates will come to rest at either end of their travel. Again, I presume, that there will only be a single gate either side of the railway track (because I couldn't work out where twin gates each side would pivot.

 

I'm not sure about the angle, but single gates are perfectly normal, especially on a small rural light railway. See this example from the Mid-Suffolk Light Railway at Wilby:

 

https://www.transporttreasury.com/p422157391/e9dd47f37

[Jeremy Cumberland]

How are the gates operated? On a light railway, they will most likely be opened and closed by the train crew or crossing keeper pushing them, so the person will need somewhere safe to walk, irrespective of any other consideration.

 

There will be walls or fences between the open ends of the gates in the top right and bottom left parts of your plan, and these will follow the road and railway, joined at an angle. There will also be a wall or fence from each hinge post, to separate the road from the railway. There might be two walls, one alongside the road and another alongside the railway.

 

This will then leave two triangles, one on either side of the road for when the gates are closed against the railway. These will almost certainly be built up as roadway or pavement, or timbered or otherwise made level with the track. Timbering or ballasting up to rail level is cheap enough, and the railway company won't want a road vehicle coming to grief on the crossing. I don't associate cattle grids or Arris rails with gated crossings, but perhaps there are examples.

 

I can't see any reason for more than two gates at your crossing. In a different situation, other gates are provided as necessary, sometimes only closing against the railway and not the road, or only against the road and not the railway, and opening in some way that does not get in the way of anything, as in this view of Penrhyn Crossing on the Ffestiniog Railway, from Google Maps:

 

Here's the view looking the other way, showing the triangle of made-up area I mentioned earlier. Although it looks like the end of a check rail near the gate, it is just a misalignment between two images, and there are no check rails:

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Jeremy C

[Wickham Green too]

2 hours ago, DCB said:

... Most "Light Railways" were downgraded from main line railways to save money when the act came in in 1895

Some might have been downgraded from main line PROPOSALS - but few were built as main line and subsequently downgraded .... until the preservation era, of course.

[Michael Hodgson]

For most railways, the original requirement introduced by Act of Parliament was that the gates close off completely the highway or the railway alternately, although there were a number of exceptions in practice.  This was consistent with the requirement to fence off the railway.  At some point this requirement seems to have been dropped, and the railway wasn't always fully sealed off when open to cars.  About this time the wooden anti-trespass cattle grids appeared - they weren't normally needed when there was a gate stopping cattle from straying onto the line.  Rules were different as between private crossings (accommodation or occupation crossings) and public roads, as at the former the gates swung away from the line rather than across it.  Lifting barriers came in from the 1950s.

 

This requirement could mean overlapping gates where the roadway was not the same width as the railway.  Sometimes a skew crossing could have gates that opened to 90 degrees, often they would swing only to be parallel to the roadway/railway or both.

 

However lower cost Light Railways operated under different legislation introduced in 1896, which didn't require fencing and open (ungated) crossings were allowed and member of the train crew might act as flagman.  Sometimes even conventional road traffic lights were provided.  Much more anything goes - do what's practical in the circumstances, with the overall objective of minimising cost.  Signalling was also much more relaxed, the accident risk being lower because of 25 mph speed limits.  A gated crossing on a light railway would generally be operated by the train crew as there was no justification for a full time crossing keeper or signalman, so would typically only have two gates rather than the four which would be more common if there was a gatewheel in a signal box.

[Nearholmer]

17 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

being lower because of 25 mph speed limits. 

The 1896 LR Act does not set a speed limit, although earlier LR provisions, superseded by the 1896 Act, within a Regulation of Railways Act during did.

 

The 1896 Act says very little about construction and operation, simply enabling the BoT to set such rules as it saw fit. In practice any speed limits were set as conditions in particular LR Orders, and although 25mph was sometimes set as a ceiling, sometimes other speeds were.

 

Footnote: Having double-checked, the 25mph ceiling, and an 8 Ton axle weight ceiling, were contained in earlier LR provisions in the 1868 Regulation of Railways Act, and were called forward in Schedule 2 of the 1896 Act. I haven’t ferreted through trying to find how/when/whether that part of the 1868 Act was repealed, the whole thing having been repealed in 1962, but it doesn’t seem to have been strictly applied in practice if it did remain in force, reliance being placed on the wisdom and common sense of the LR commissioners and BoT Inspectors. The speed limit isn’t set or called-up in requirements and guidance published by the BoT in respect of LRs.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Tom Burnham]

The only staffed crossing on the  Kent & East Sussex was at Northbridge Street Robertsbridge, which was then part of the main London-Hastings road. Other crossings were open and collisions became more common as motor traffic increased after WW1, the Biddenden crossing becoming notorious in that respect.

[Pete the Elaner]

8 hours ago, Ray H said:

 

The red lines indicate where I assume the gates will come to rest at either end of their travel. Again, I presume, that there will only be a single gate either side of the railway track (because I couldn't work out where twin gates each side would pivot.

 

 

I have not often seen double gates each side of the line on the real railway, even on a double track. I was brought up close to the GE, so maybe there was a regional preference for one over the other? Single gates which span both tracks were much more common but neither Hornby not Peco products reflect this.

[Ray H]

12 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I have not often seen double gates each side of the line on the real railway, even on a double track. I was brought up close to the GE, so maybe there was a regional preference for one over the other? Single gates which span both tracks were much more common but neither Hornby not Peco products reflect this.

 

There were four gates over the Ripple Road (Barking) level crossing which carried a twin carriageway over the railway but that probably classes as LMR rather than ER/GE.

[VIA185]

14 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I have not often seen double gates each side of the line on the real railway, even on a double track. I was brought up close to the GE, so maybe there was a regional preference for one over the other? Single gates which span both tracks were much more common but neither Hornby not Peco products reflect this.

Double gates each side of the line were the norm where I lived, though they were all wheel-operated from an adjacent signal box. They were of SR (Thorpe Lane, Pooley Green, Egham) and GWR (Colnbrook) origin. Hand-worked gates could be 2 or 4 and sometimes when there was a width difference between railway and road, they would be closed over one another in one direction. Whilst two large gates might make hand-operation easier, hand-worked double gates were also quite common. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by VIA185

[Wickham Green too]

This may be of interest ? : - 

 

Kingsmoss No.1 Crossing : 16/5/88

[Pete the Elaner]

This was Brundall in Norfolk in 2019, shortly before the line was closed for a few months for resignalling. I assume the gates were replaced by automatic barriers at the same time.

I was intrigued by the staggered platforms. There are not uncommon but the stagger usually allows trains to clear the level crossing before they stop. Having them as they are here means the trains stop short of the crossing, keeping road traffic waiting a little longer. I had a good look around for any clues why they would do this, but I could not find any.

I find the footbridge interesting too. At most times you can use the road to cross the tracks but it is quite common for a station with a level crossing to have a footbridge at the same end.

I was local to the Colchester-Clacton line; about 15-20 miles of double track all the way with 8 crossings that I know of, all single-gated like this one. I believe they all have automatic barriers now.

[bécasse]

Large, sometimes very large, single crossing gates, together with very tall posts from which the gates were hung, were a signature feature of the Great Eastern Railway.

 

The crossing featured in the photo in VIA185's post above appears to be one of those on the Shipston-on-Stour branch, a GWR rebuild of an early tramroad.

[VIA185]

7 minutes ago, bécasse said:

Large, sometimes very large, single crossing gates, together with very tall posts from which the gates were hung, were a signature feature of the Great Eastern Railway.

 

The crossing featured in the photo in VIA185's post above appears to be one of those on the Shipston-on-Stour branch, a GWR rebuild of an early tramroad.

Yes, it was Stretton-on-Fosse. The cottage is still there but the A429 is a bit different! It could have been done with two long gates - less work - but all the Shipston branch crossings seem to have been four, despite the fact that the train crew had to open and close them. (CJL)

Edited April 12, 2023 by VIA185

[Nearholmer]

Our local branch, double track, has a vast number of level crossings and until they were converted to barriers most/all/many (memory fails me!) were four gates. 
 

On the less busy roads, the gates were kept closed across the roads and the crossing keepers would only open them to the bare minimum to let road vehicles through, just the necessary leaves, to wing-mirror-scraping width.

 

I think this might be the only gated vehicle crossing left on the line, although there are gated bridleways and footpaths, and I think the rough road it’s on is private, rather than a public highway. The gates open away from the track, so I think the red roundel is more decorative than anything.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Nearholmer

[PerthBox]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

The gates open away from the track, so I think the red roundel is more decorative than anything.

 

The target is actually a road sign for motorists and cyclists - diagram 106 of the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 1996: 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1786/made/data.xht?wrap=true

[Michael Hodgson]

5 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I find the footbridge interesting too. At most times you can use the road to cross the tracks but it is quite common for a station with a level crossing to have a footbridge at the same end.

 

I think the Men from the Ministry often insisted on on a footbridge when they inspected lines for opening.  More important for passengers than for the locals just going about their business, who can be kept waiting for a few minutes.  But if you're trying to catch a train approaching on the opposite side of the line from the booking office having just bought your ticket, it's not safe to dash across the line at ground level.

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, PerthBox said:

The target is actually a road sign for motorists and cyclists - diagram 106 of the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 1996: 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1786/made/data.xht?wrap=true

It was a road sign long before that Act.  The equivalent of a red flag to horse drawn draffic.

 

On gates that swung across the line it could also be a railway signal, but in that case it would be on both sides of the gate.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Michael Hodgson

[Tom Burnham]

Just heard a Zoom talk to the Colonel Stephens Society on branch lines of East Sussex.  Rowfant on the Three Bridges to East Grinstead line had a level crossing with the road at almost 45 degrees to the railway, with the gates leaving quite a lot of ballasted track next to the road when they were closed across the track.  See for instance https://sremg.org.uk/location/rowfant.html - no doubt other photos can be found - this one for instance https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rowfant_station_and_signalbox_(1965).JPG

Edited April 13, 2023 by Tom Burnham

[Ray H]

On 12/04/2023 at 18:10, Michael Hodgson said:

I think the Men from the Ministry often insisted on on a footbridge when they inspected lines for opening.  More important for passengers than for the locals just going about their business, who can be kept waiting for a few minutes.  But if you're trying to catch a train approaching on the opposite side of the line from the booking office having just bought your ticket, it's not safe to dash across the line at ground level.

 

When I did the BR signalling voluntary class nearly 50 years ago I seem to recall that a level crossing (with gates?) was not considered as an obstruction as far as the acceptance of a train under regulation 4 was concerned. Were trains allowed to draw up to the gates, closed across the railway, to stop at a platform or would there have been a local instruction that said either the train had to be cautioned (at the home signal?) before being allowed to draw up to the gates or were the gates opened to the railway a short while before the train was due to reach there?

[ikcdab]

33 minutes ago, Ray H said:

 

When I did the BR signalling voluntary class nearly 50 years ago I seem to recall that a level crossing (with gates?) was not considered as an obstruction as far as the acceptance of a train under regulation 4 was concerned. Were trains allowed to draw up to the gates, closed across the railway, to stop at a platform or would there have been a local instruction that said either the train had to be cautioned (at the home signal?) before being allowed to draw up to the gates or were the gates opened to the railway a short while before the train was due to reach there?

You are right that a level crossing is not considered an obstruction wrt reg4. But the interlocking is entirely different. At Blue Anchor, the starting signal is right on top of the gates and so the gates have to be opened and locked before the home and starter can be cleared. This is because if the train overruns the starter, it is immediately through the gates and onto the crossing. However, at Williton, the starter is set back about 20 or 30 yards from the crossing (perhaps more) and so in this case the home is not locked to the gates.

So to answer your question, no trains were not allowed to pull right up to closed gates. 

Interestingly, when I first started at blue anchor, the advanced starter was backlocked to the gates. This meant that a train had to pass over the crossing and go a considerable way to pass the advanced starter before the gates could be opened to the road.

Ian

[ikcdab]

On 11/04/2023 at 12:22, Ray H said:

I presume that not all road/rail level crossings were at 90º to each other.

 

I'm considering adding a level crossing to my O gauge layout laid out similarly to the following (where the white strip represents the roadway).

 

 

The red lines indicate where I assume the gates will come to rest at either end of their travel. Again, I presume, that there will only be a single gate either side of the railway track (because I couldn't work out where twin gates each side would pivot.

 

The roadway will only be wide enough to take a single vehicle - e,g, lorry.

 

When the gates are closed across the railway it seems that it would be very easy to drive off the roadway and onto the track.

 

I've seen cattle grids alongside roadways crossing the railway but would this have been the only option or would the road surface be widened between the gates? I presume there would be a fence between the gate end stops on each side of the track.

 

I should add that this is a light railway. Would that make a difference in practice?

 

Thanks.

I think the key to this is that it's a light railway and a single track road.  So things would have been done as cheaply as possible.  I suspect wooden grids or just ballast would have filled the gap.

Ian

[Jeremy Cumberland]

50 minutes ago, Ray H said:

 

When I did the BR signalling voluntary class nearly 50 years ago I seem to recall that a level crossing (with gates?) was not considered as an obstruction as far as the acceptance of a train under regulation 4 was concerned. Were trains allowed to draw up to the gates, closed across the railway, to stop at a platform or would there have been a local instruction that said either the train had to be cautioned (at the home signal?) before being allowed to draw up to the gates or were the gates opened to the railway a short while before the train was due to reach there?

The closed gates aren't an obstruction for accepting trains under Regulation 4, but they do constitute a stop signal (whether or not a separate stop signal is provided), so Rule 39 applies, requiring a train approaching a signal at danger to be brought to a stand or nearly to a stand at the stop signal in rear worked from the same box:

 

Brundall had stop signals in rear in both directions, so I expect the signaller's preference would have been to close the gates to the road and clear the stop signal (4), so as not to have to caution trains at the outer home (3). In the other direction, I assume 30 and 33 were interlocked with the gates.

 

 

In more general terms, yes, trains were permitted right up to the gates, or to the signal protecting the gates. Criccieth level crossing just had a distant and a home in each direction, with the home immediately before the gates. When a driver failed to register that the distant was at caution, they crashed through the gates:

 

In the context of the OP's light railway, I doubt that distants were provided (they were exceptionally rare on narrow gauge light railways, but I am not sure about standard gauge). However, the gate itself, if the crossing is gated across the railway, ought to have a red board. On the Ffestiniog Railway it used to be possible to draw right up to the gates at Minffordd and Penrhyn.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Jeremy C

[ikcdab]

On 11/04/2023 at 20:54, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I have not often seen double gates each side of the line on the real railway, even on a double track. I was brought up close to the GE, so maybe there was a regional preference for one over the other? Single gates which span both tracks were much more common but neither Hornby not Peco products reflect this.

Unless I misunderstand you, level crossings with four gates were common.  My experience is with Blue Anchor on the WSR.

Widening the point, I am always intrigued by skew crossings.  There is a diagram of a four gate crossing worked by wheel from the box in one of the GWR books. The gates were all different lengths and although worked from a single wheel, all travelled at different speeds to get to the stops at the same time.  All done with cranks and rods of differing sizes.   Very clever.

Ian