Level crossing gate query

[Tom Burnham]

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 the Tovil Goods branch in Maidstone (essentially a long siding crossing the river to a goods depot in what was then an industrial area) was inspected, the inspector commented unfavourably on the fact that at the junction, while the branch had both a footbridge and a foot crossing next to each other, there was only a foot crossing of the main line to Paddock Wood.  The Paddock Wood line was earlier, 1844 compared with (from memory) 1885 for the Tovil branch, and requirements had no doubt changed, as well as the neighbourhood becoming much more built up in those 40 years.  Despite this fairly strongly worded suggestion in 1885, it was only about 5 years ago that a footbridge was actually provided on the Paddock Wood line!

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour 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?

Not considered an obstruction for acceptance purposes but rules varied because of different geographical circumstances.  Sometimes gates had to be opened before home signal was cleared for train to draw up to platform, this could be enforced by interlocking. This was more likely where the gates were very close to the platform end or if there was a downhill gradient because of the risk of overshooting.  If station stop was likely to take a few minutes, gates might be reopened to traffic briefly to allow waiting traffic to cross only to be closed again when the train was ready to leave.  In some places however it was sufficent to allow the train to be brought in under caution after it had been demonstrated to be under control by stopping or reducing speed.  It was essentially a question of how safe the overlap was, because of the risk of misjudgment,

 

Except where platforms were staggered, one each side of the crossing, the gates had to be opened to admit trains to one of the platforms anyway, so it was usually only an issue in one direction.  Also of course it was only a problem for stopping passenger trains or perhaps the pick-up goods.  For non-stopping trains you would have offered the train on and cleared all running signals, and the interlocking would of course require the gates.

[Michael Hodgson]

55 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

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

 

Four-gated crossings were fairly common but would be the minority.  There was a great deal of variety in how these things worked, a lot of different designs of gatewheel etc, and the mechanical design was complex, and often had to be bespoke to fit a location.  In a few cases there was even an escapement mechanism which allowed one set of gates to move before another so that they didn't foul each other.  Even though square rodding had been brought in for point operation, the rodding for gatewheels generally continued to be round because the forces involved were so great, and the mechanisms included gearing. A lot of the rodding linkages and cranks were under the road surface, so that had to be accessible for maintenance, which is why the road surfaces, were usually stout lengths of timber. 

 

It wasn;t just the gates that were worked by rodding, there were also gate stops, designed not only to prevent overtravel of the gate but to hold it in position.  In the case if those in the middle of the roadway these also had retract into the surface so that vehicles didn't hit them (fairly well modelled on the old airfix level crossing kit) . The big heavy lump of metal in this photo is such a rising gate stop on the East Lancs railway undergoing repair following damage by heavy lorries.  A stop rising in the bigger hole prevents overtravel for both gates.  The smaller slots house latches which spring up behind the gate (each separately in case they arrive at slightly different times) and prevent it from bouncing back.

[Wickham Green too]

Signals ? ..... Interlocking ? .................... wassat all about, then ?

 

Morar : 15/9/81

[Michael Hodgson]

It's not like that any more!

I think it was an AOCL before it got half barriers.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours 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?

Definitely not an obstruction within the Clearing Point so a train can be accepted under full Line Clear with the crossing gates open to road and across the railway within the Clearing Point.

 

The answer to your second question varies abit.  First there is nothing whatsoever to preventa train being allowed to approach a level crossing protected bya single stop signal (or by thered target on the gates themselves).  But as already pointed out if there is more than one stop signal in rear of the gates Rule 39/its descendants will apply and an approaching train will be brought almost to a stand at such signal(s) before being allowed to approach the signal immediately in rear of the crossing gates when it is at danger .

 

But we also need to consider individual Company's interlocking practice which can mean differences.  Looking at a couple of examples the Western seems to have usually applied their normal convention for interlocking  with trailing points to stop signals in rear of a level crossing  - i.e. they 'locked two back'.  So not only the protecting signal but also the one in rear of that was locked by the crossing.  But of course if there was only one stop signal that couldn't happen anyway so a train would be accepted in the usual way and the protecting signal would be at danger.   There might possibly have been something in a signal box's Special instructions regarding the situation but the standard arrangement was exactly as you have surmised.

 

Incideantally the number of gates at a level crossing was basically a consequence of the width of the road or the angle at which it crossed the line.  The legal requirement was that when closed to road traffic the gates were required to completely fence the railway.  However this seems to have also been interpreted that they should fence the railway when open to road - effectively an extension of the legal requirement to fencea railway.  

 

Gates at public road crossings were not permitted to open away from the railway but had to swing across the railway when opened for road traffic.  Gates at occupation and accommodation crossings open away from the railway and they should be provided with cattle guards on the railway.

 

Level crossings on Light Railways may vary from the standard arrangement according to local conditions etc.

[Ray H]

8 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Signals ? ..... Interlocking ? .................... wassat all about, then ?

 

Morar : 15/9/81

 

Thanks for all the responses.

 

These pictures show a road/rail angle that I would guess is probably somewhere near that which I'll have on the layout.

 

I appreciate that things might be different for a light railway/goods yard access "roadway" but there's a touch of rule 1 here as I think they'd add a little extra to the layout especially as I'll be trying to have them working.

[Wickham Green too]

4 minutes ago, Ray H said:

... a road/rail angle that I would guess is probably somewhere near that which I'll have on the layout....

Yep - it's pretty acute ! 

 

Hmmm .......... could almost qualify for the 'When the prototype looks like a model' thread.

[Mark Saunders]

58 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Yep - it's pretty acute ! 

 

Hmmm .......... could almost qualify for the 'When the prototype looks like a model' thread.

The signal is the gate, red light by night and disc by day!

 

Aiskew is now AOCL but must have had similar in the past as the line crosses at an angle!

[Miss Prism]

On 12/04/2023 at 13:31, VIA185 said:

Yes, it was Stretton-on-Fosse.

 

It's Longdon Road (after the sidings were lifted).

[VIA185]

23 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

It's Longdon Road (after the sidings were lifted).

Yes, I changed the picture, due to copyright concerns, but didn't change my thoughts about the location. The shot at Stretton-on-Fosse, which had four hand-opened gates, is in the forthcoming May issue of Steam World which has an article about the Shipston-on-Stour branch. (CJL)

[Miss Prism]

That's worth looking out for!

[Artless Bodger]

On 14/04/2023 at 10:02, Tom Burnham said:

When the Tovil Goods branch in Maidstone (essentially a long siding crossing the river to a goods depot in what was then an industrial area) was inspected, the inspector commented unfavourably on the fact that at the junction, while the branch had both a footbridge and a foot crossing next to each other, there was only a foot crossing of the main line to Paddock Wood.  The Paddock Wood line was earlier, 1844 compared with (from memory) 1885 for the Tovil branch, and requirements had no doubt changed, as well as the neighbourhood becoming much more built up in those 40 years.  Despite this fairly strongly worded suggestion in 1885, it was only about 5 years ago that a footbridge was actually provided on the Paddock Wood line!

Interesting. My recollection was that the footbridge was over the main line to Paddock Wood and only a foot crossing on the goods branch. As a child Mum used to take us for a walk, down Bower Lane, over the footbridge then the branch crossing, to the river footbridge, to see either Grandad in Allnut's paper mill, or relatives in Beaconsfield Road. I thought the footbridge originally served Tovil station too. I've not travelled the Paddock Wood route for several years but the Google map view shows now a ramped, accessible, footbridge.

[Tom Burnham]

1 hour ago, Artless Bodger said:

Interesting. My recollection was that the footbridge was over the main line to Paddock Wood and only a foot crossing on the goods branch. As a child Mum used to take us for a walk, down Bower Lane, over the footbridge then the branch crossing, to the river footbridge, to see either Grandad in Allnut's paper mill, or relatives in Beaconsfield Road. I thought the footbridge originally served Tovil station too. I've not travelled the Paddock Wood route for several years but the Google map view shows now a ramped, accessible, footbridge.

Yes, you're quite right - it was the other way round.  I should check my sources and not rely on memory - particularly when the source was an article I'd written Myself!
https://kesr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/133-Summer-2017.pdf

https://kesr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/134-Winter-2017.pdf

[Artless Bodger]

Thank you Tom, I was wondering if my memory played tricks. Thanks for the links to the Tenterden Terrier too, very interesting especially the photos of Tovil station which I had not seen before. The photo of the contractors loco on the temporary bridge just by Allnut's entrance is very evocative and modellable.

 

East Farleigh had some elements refered to above - the road crossed the railway at an angle, the gaps filled with tarmac in later years, with cattle grids too. Single gates and iirc hand operated. Staggered platforms typical of SER stations, with the starting signals just before the gates in both directions. Footbridge also in later years. The road was on a quite steep gradient counter to the superelevation of the curved track through the station which led to an bumpy ride when driven over. 

 

New Hythe station further north on the same line had a 4 gate crossing, wheel operated from the adjacent box. I have a vague recollection there were grids here too but cannot find photographic evidence. There was a story that after the gates were replaced by lifting barriers, some phosphor bronze table rolls in transit fell off the mill engineer's solid tyred truck, rolled onto the track and became welded to it, with ensuing chaos. 

[The Stationmaster]

On 14/04/2023 at 19:53, Ray H said:

 

Thanks for all the responses.

 

These pictures show a road/rail angle that I would guess is probably somewhere near that which I'll have on the layout.

 

I appreciate that things might be different for a light railway/goods yard access "roadway" but there's a touch of rule 1 here as I think they'd add a little extra to the layout especially as I'll be trying to have them working.

Ah,  Morar -at some time where the level crossing was originally protected by fixed signals worked by a ground frame.  It might have been reduced to TMO status at sometime if the station was unstaffed but was latterly AOCL (is it stil or has it been upgraded to AOCL(B)l?).  

 

A bunch of us spent Easter weekend 1969 there in a couple of Pullman camping coaches.  In those days the chap manning the station was a retired Driver who'd started as a Cleaner at Mallaig in 1913, aged 14.    I helped him out with his book-up and weekly accounts as us lot buying Priv Tickets to Mallaig gave him one of his busiest weeks ever and he didn't have that old booking office essential - a ready reckoner.

 

Somewhere I have a photo of the yard ground frame, dating from NBR days, and one of the signal protecting the level crossing.

 

Here's a view of it in sunnier days which I've found online -

https://www.flickr.com/photos/24718842@N04/3054147247

 

[Wickham Green too]

13 hours ago, Artless Bodger said:

... East Farleigh had some elements referred to above - the road crossed the railway at an angle, the gaps filled with tarmac in later years, with cattle grids too. Single gates and iirc hand operated. ... ( etc.)

 

East Farleigh : 14/1/93

 

13 hours ago, Artless Bodger said:

... New Hythe station further north on the same line had a 4 gate crossing, wheel operated from the adjacent box. I have a vague recollection there were grids here too ...

 

New Hythe : also 14/1/93

[The Stationmaster]

East Farleigh gates were definitely hand swung - and I've swung 'em.  

 

I visited East Farleigh on one of my personsal 'signal photography safaris' about 30 years ago and got chatting with the Signalman - hence I have photos of the block instruments, plus I walked out to the superb Up Distantt Signal in order to get a photo of it. (yes, I did have full trackside safety qualification, including 3rd rail territory. and was in any case an authorised Examiner for track safety qualification).

 

Anyway during my time in the 'box the gates needed to be swung a couple of times and it was only polite to assist - but they were very heavy gates to get swinging.  And it was a very dangerous job because of nutcase motorists in the area who had the pernicious habit of trying to beat the gates - I've an idea a member of staff was injured due to being hit by a car.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Ah,  Morar -at some time where the level crossing was originally protected by fixed signals worked by a ground frame.  It might have been reduced to TMO status at sometime if the station was unstaffed but was latterly AOCL (is it stil or has it been upgraded to AOCL(B)l?).  

 

 

I believe the AOCLs in Scotland have all now been upgraded to barrier crossings (of various sorts) as a matter of Scottish Govt policy following a nasty accident at one of them. 

[Michael Hodgson]

I understand Rosarie level crossing near Keith is still AOCR and the last one on the national network.

It was when I was last there several years ago - and I saw the bin lorry use it, doesn't bear thinking about.

That type fell out of favour following the Lockington accident.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Michael Hodgson

[Artless Bodger]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

East Farleigh gates were definitely hand swung - and I've swung 'em.  

 

I visited East Farleigh on one of my personsal 'signal photography safaris' about 30 years ago and got chatting with the Signalman - hence I have photos of the block instruments, plus I walked out to the superb Up Distantt Signal in order to get a photo of it. (yes, I did have full trackside safety qualification, including 3rd rail territory. and was in any case an authorised Examiner for track safety qualification).

 

Anyway during my time in the 'box the gates needed to be swung a couple of times and it was only polite to assist - but they were very heavy gates to get swinging.  And it was a very dangerous job because of nutcase motorists in the area who had the pernicious habit of trying to beat the gates - I've an idea a member of staff was injured due to being hit by a car.

I too recall that someone was injured by an impatient motorist. Having the single lane Medway bridge just round the bend didn't help with motorists' attitudes either.

[Artless Bodger]

4 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

 

East Farleigh : 14/1/93

 

 

New Hythe : also 14/1/93

Thank you Wickham Green too for these photos. East Farleigh was a delightful place with the Egyptian style waterworks building adjacent and overlooking the mediaeval bridge and lock on the Medway Navigation. There was a nice pub too on the bank above the railway, overlooking the station, though as I was underage, the family had to go into the garden round the back. The goods shed was extant then.

 

New Hythe box is now closed, since the level crossing was replaced by an overbridge (set of photos of its construction somewhere else on RMweb). Just after 5 with two passenger trains due and also sometimes our oil train arriving late, the staff driving out of east mill would chance it as the lights began to flash for the barriers - one or two colleagues got fined for it. Never bothered me as I couldn't drive and caught the train. If the oil train arrived even better - it had to cross the crossing to the advance starter before backing upgrade to enter Brookgate siding - a 73 with diesel on full power, restarting 1000T was something to behold and hear!

[VIA185]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

East Farleigh gates were definitely hand swung - and I've swung 'em.  

 

I visited East Farleigh on one of my personsal 'signal photography safaris' about 30 years ago and got chatting with the Signalman - hence I have photos of the block instruments, plus I walked out to the superb Up Distantt Signal in order to get a photo of it. (yes, I did have full trackside safety qualification, including 3rd rail territory. and was in any case an authorised Examiner for track safety qualification).

 

Anyway during my time in the 'box the gates needed to be swung a couple of times and it was only polite to assist - but they were very heavy gates to get swinging.  And it was a very dangerous job because of nutcase motorists in the area who had the pernicious habit of trying to beat the gates - I've an idea a member of staff was injured due to being hit by a car.

An accident at East Farleigh in 2015 in which the signalman received life-changing injuries cost Network Rail a £200,000 fine and £86,000 in costs. (CJL)

[Tom Burnham]

16 minutes ago, VIA185 said:

An accident at East Farleigh in 2015 in which the signalman received life-changing injuries cost Network Rail a £200,000 fine and £86,000 in costs. (CJL)

And as I understand it initiated a programme to convert remaining crossings with gates to lifting barriers - East Farleigh and Wateringbury on the Medway Valley line have been done in recent years, as have the remaining gated crossings on the Ashford to Canterbury line. I believe East Farleigh still has local control, partly I guess because of the complicated layout  of the fairly busy road as mentioned above - a steep narrow road one side and a single track medieval bridge on the other.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

6 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

 

East Farleigh : 14/1/93

 

 

Of note in this photo, in relation to the original query, is that the gates are parallel to the railway when closed against the road, and that they are parallel to the road when closed against the railway, unlike the OPs drawing (and what I think is a more common arrangement, illustrated by the photos of Penhryn and Morar) where the gates are perpendicular to the thing they are closed against. The discrepancy is particularly clear when you compare the position of the left hand gate to the edge of the box junction.

 

This has two additional effects:

• Each gate swings to the other gate's hinge post when closed against the railway, eliminating the need for additional fencing.
• There is no triangle of ground between the roadway and each gate, although the stepped arrangement of the edge of the roadway is worth noting.

I expect this arrangement only works where the angle is reasonably close to a right angle, perhaps 70 degress or more.