Vertical wigwags at level crossings

[TheSignalEngineer]

The one at Furness Vale is subject to special authorisation. The relevant wording appears in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual, ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual ) where it says :-

 

"24.2.3.  There are situations where the standard signal to S14‑2‑5 cannot be used because of a lack of space. A narrower version is available but requires the relevant national authority’s authorisation. This has the same layout as the standard signal but with smaller gaps between the aspects and a reduced width backing board. Designers wishing to use this should contact the relevant national authority for the approved drawing."

[ruggedpeak]

Well wigwag spotters, found some more for the collection on a walk pretty close to home, Church Lane Crossing between Ingatestone and Margaretting on the GEML in Essex. The crossing was closed and the wigwags operating constantly when we arrived. When we appeared at the gates wondering how to cross a rail worker was sat in his car on the other side, asked us if we wanted to cross and then called the signaller to operate the gates. I assume he called the signaller at Ingatestone signal box?

 

As soon as we were through the closing routine initiated despite no trains being due. On the east side as below you can see 4 sets of narrow wigwags serving the road (which only has a large house and church on it https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6784782,0.4061822,385m/data=!3m1!1e3 ) There are two wigwags facing the road, and wigwags facing the farm tracks/footpaths that join from either side.

 

 

 

 

 

This is the view from the west side

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

It's a CCTV crossing; the barriers should normally be up if there's no trains about.  The cameras can be seen on the rightmost post in the last photo. 

 

I assume the railway working sitting in his car with the barriers kept down indicate that some sort of work was in progress, or that some kind of failure requiring him to attend and act as crossing keeper, even though it still worked under power.  He may have been conducting a survey of usage.

 

Authorised vehicles only suggest the road is private (although that might not apply to it as a footpath).  

Edited January 2, 2022 by Michael Hodgson

[Trog]

 

Another some what odd looking one.

 

Do I also remember reading of there once being a lower quadrant road signal guarding a level crossing in I think Reading once upon a time? Can you imagine the fun there would be with that if it was still there probably as a listed structure, perhaps updated with a flashing red/orange light behind the spectacle plate. The locals would probably be fond / proud of it, but a sign explaining how it worked would be needed for non locals.

[Welly]

6 minutes ago, Trog said:

Do I also remember reading of there once being a lower quadrant road signal guarding a level crossing in I think Reading once upon a time? Can you imagine the fun there would be with that if it was still there probably as a listed structure, perhaps updated with a flashing red/orange light behind the spectacle plate. The locals would probably be fond / proud of it, but a sign explaining how it worked would be needed for non locals.

There was a tramline crossing the High Street crossing in Lincoln and it did have a lower quadrant signal for the tram drivers at the level crossing.

[MidlandRed]

2 hours ago, Trog said:

 

Another some what odd looking one.

 

Do I also remember reading of there once being a lower quadrant road signal guarding a level crossing in I think Reading once upon a time? Can you imagine the fun there would be with that if it was still there probably as a listed structure, perhaps updated with a flashing red/orange light behind the spectacle plate. The locals would probably be fond / proud of it, but a sign explaining how it worked would be needed for non locals.

There was a quite famous ungated level crossing in the centre of Worcester, across what was once the main A38 (replaced as a through route by the M5), but nonetheless a busy urban location where the ‘vinegar’ branch crossed and the road was protected by two lower quadrant signals facing road traffic (in the lower position when clear for road traffic) - how road traffic drivers were meant to know that in the horizontal position it meant stop is unclear - though it’s introduction was probably at a time there was no driving test let alone Highway Code. 
 

Regrettably I never saw a train cross this on a number of trips in my parents’ car through the location - I suspect the train was accompanied by workers with red flags in reality - the crossing was still in operation in the 1960s and one of the rail anachronisms still visible alongside then ‘modern’ road traffic like Fleetline buses etc. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by MidlandRed

[Trog]

Vinegar rings a bell I think that was the one I was trying to remember, well done that man.

[phil-b259]

On 22/08/2021 at 14:08, Michael Hodgson said:

I don't think the vertical arrangement was ever in the Highway Code, so (assuming one survives!) one might get lucky with challenging prosecution on those grounds, but in most cases there's still another set of wigwags on the other side of the street with the valid arrangement.

 

It should be noted that ANY road sign, road marking or arrangement of Traffic signal can be receive site specific authorisation by the Secretary of State by issuing an appropriate order.

 

In such cases the 'non-compliant' signs / markings / traffic signals' are legally binding.

 

However if no authorisation has been received then all signage and traffic signals MUST confirm to the TRSGD legislation (which is NOT the same thing as the Highway code) which sets out the details of what is proscribed for any given situation to be enforceable.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual

Edited January 4, 2022 by phil-b259

[Michael Hodgson]

On 02/01/2022 at 21:32, Trog said:

Vinegar rings a bell I think that was the one I was trying to remember, well done that man.

I thought the Lower quadrant one got repalced at some date by U/Q ?

[phil-b259]

On 23/08/2021 at 12:31, Edwin_m said:

It's possible they are not legally enforceable, but it's clearly safer to have a non-compliant set of lights than to have none at all in that position.  If someone went through them they could probably be prosecuted anyway for violating the compliant lights that are also visible from the same direction of approach. 

 

They  are legally enforceable if....

 

(1) They comply with the TRSGD regulations

 

or

 

(2) The Secretary of State for Transport has given site specific authorisation for their use.

[Edwin_m]

8 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

They  are legally enforceable if....

 

(1) They comply with the TRSGD regulations

 

or

 

(2) The Secretary of State for Transport has given site specific authorisation for their use.

(2) is difficult.  It took ages to get DfT to approve something as simple as a No Entry with an "Except Trams" plate on Metrolink, when the alternatives was the blue "tram only" sign which I suspect 90% of motorists wouldn't understand.  

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 02/01/2022 at 21:32, Trog said:

Vinegar rings a bell I think that was the one I was trying to remember, well done that man.

Last train on the Vinegar Branch crossing Pheadant Street on this page

http://www.miac.org.uk/hillevans.html

More history of the branch including lots of pictures of old remnants

http://www.miac.org.uk/vinegarmap.html

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

(2) is difficult.  It took ages to get DfT to approve something as simple as a No Entry with an "Except Trams" plate on Metrolink, when the alternatives was the blue "tram only" sign which I suspect 90% of motorists wouldn't understand.  

 

Agreed - but there is some logic to that in the sense that the whole point of having the TRSGD is to ensure consistency on roads across the UK*. The more deviations from 'standard' the SoS authorises the less constancy you get on the roads.

 

Moreover as a motorist it is your duty to become familiar with ALL road signs - not just a tiny selection. The fact that so many motorists are ignorant of such things is actually a pretty damning embodiment of the whole driver licencing system which is very much a 'pass and forget' setup and would be significantly improved with mandatory periodic re-tests (even if just the theory + hazard perception segments). But I digress....

 

If a particular variant of a sign is to be used widely (and the example of 'no entry except trams' is a good example) it needs to be made a proscribed variant in the TRSGD.  This did in fact happen in the most recent revision to the TRSGD even though it technically wasn't required as the 'tram only' blue sign had the same legal standing and 'no entry except trams' was only needed because the think British public seemingly don't understand the meaning of the former.

 

 

* Though it has to be said since the design of road schemes has been farmed out to the private sector the amount of mistakes they are making in implementing the TRSGD is huge and nobody seems to give a damn!

Edited January 4, 2022 by phil-b259

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

If a particular variant of a sign is to be used widely (and the example of 'no entry except trams' is a good example) it needs to be made a proscribed variant in the TRSGD.  This did in fact happen in the most recent revision to the TRSGD even though it technically wasn't required as the 'tram only' blue sign had the same legal standing and 'no entry except trams' was only needed because the think British public seemingly don't understand the meaning of the former.

At the risk of going off-topic...

 

Blue "tram only" is a terrible bit of design from a human factors point of view.  Agreed blue is the standard colour for mandatory instructions, but for everyone except tram drivers (who have no choice on where to go) the sign at the divergence of tram tracks from a road needs to be a prohibition on everyone else.  It's easily confusable with the tramway signs provided for pedestrians, which tend to be put up all around these junctions and are also blue with a picture of a tram, and with the exception of "one way" and a few others most blue signs are irrelevant to vehicle drivers unless on motorways.  No Entry "Except Buses" has been acceptable for many years.  

 

All the experienced tram operators advising the design team were agreed that No Entry "Except Trams" would be a far more effective deterrent against the frequent incursions of road vehicles onto tram-only sections.  Many other tram operators at the time (about 10 years ago now) erected the same signs a few inches into the tram-only section so they didn't count as being on the highway.  So you might think this was an open and shut case, but the permission we got took some time and was only for Metrolink - I'm glad to hear it's since been made universal.  

 

The meaning of these narrow wig-wags is self-evident to anyone with knowledge of the standard type - they aren't going to be ignored just because they don't conform to the standard dimensions.  The vertical ones are possibly more problematic because they look like a normal traffic signal that has gone out.  This may explain why at least one vertical one has changed to a narrow horizontal one, as noted in an earlier post.  On a quick check all illustrations of these lights in the online Highway Code show them horizontally.   

Edited January 4, 2022 by Edwin_m

[Bomag]

6 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

(2) is difficult.  It took ages to get DfT to approve something as simple as a No Entry with an "Except Trams" plate on Metrolink, when the alternatives was the blue "tram only" sign which I suspect 90% of motorists wouldn't understand.  

 

The one I have seen in Manchester are correct in that the restriction in the opposite direction was not the same as the primary 'tram only'. The abuse of the the no entry sign is often advocated by those who are not competent highway engineers, the problem being that the no entry sign has ben placed in so many incorrect locations is a terrible human factors problem. 

 

So a section of single carriageway where the primary direction is tram only but the other direction is a highway (or road) open to all, or some traffic, then the no entry sign with plate is correct.

 

For a section of tramway where there is no traffic permitted in either direction then Diagram 953.1 must be used. DfT have neither authorised, nor prescribed, the use of the former signs (no entry) for this situation. It would be Ultra Viries to do so. The fact that the authorisation for Manchester require a TRO would indicate that they  all fall into the above category.  Therefore the statement that Dia 953.1 is the same as Diagram 616 + plate is not correct. You have to use the correct sign; Dia 616 is not a RTA Section 36 sign while Dia 953.1 is, therefore a section of tram only infrastructure, which is not a road, can be entered without it being a road traffic offence if signed with Dia 616+plate.

 

In terms of level crossings, the current consultation by ORR would indicate that they still do not properly get traffic signs, nor highway engineering. As far as I am aware the highways side of ORR was not in the loop before they went out to consultation.  Having sat on the Law Soc review the best part of decade ago you would have thought ORR would have read up on the issues to resolve.  

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, Bomag said:

 

The one I have seen in Manchester are correct in that the restriction in the opposite direction was not the same as the primary 'tram only'. The abuse of the the no entry sign is often advocated by those who are not competent highway engineers, the problem being that the no entry sign has ben placed in so many incorrect locations is a terrible human factors problem. 

 

So a section of single carriageway where the primary direction is tram only but the other direction is a highway (or road) open to all, or some traffic, then the no entry sign with plate is correct.

 

For a section of tramway where there is no traffic permitted in either direction then Diagram 953.1 must be used. DfT have neither authorised, nor prescribed, the use of the former signs (no entry) for this situation. It would be Ultra Viries to do so. The fact that the authorisation for Manchester require a TRO would indicate that they  all fall into the above category.  Therefore the statement that Dia 953.1 is the same as Diagram 616 + plate is not correct. You have to use the correct sign; Dia 616 is not a RTA Section 36 sign while Dia 953.1 is, therefore a section of tram only infrastructure, which is not a road, can be entered without it being a road traffic offence if signed with Dia 616+plate.

 

In terms of level crossings, the current consultation by ORR would indicate that they still do not properly get traffic signs, nor highway engineering. As far as I am aware the highways side of ORR was not in the loop before they went out to consultation.  Having sat on the Law Soc review the best part of decade ago you would have thought ORR would have read up on the issues to resolve.  

Not sure I understand this fully - the detailed stuff was dealt with by colleagues who are highway engineers, presumably competent ones, and not by me.  

 

However, after delving into the Manual, I think you are re-stating the point about the No Entry sign not being legally enforceable, something I noted several posts back. But the current Manual states:

 

Quote

Where an integrated on‑street tramway leaves the general traffic route to enter a tram gate, a segregated on‑street tramway (or tram‑only road) or an off‑street tramway, upright signs to either diagram 616 (“no entry”) with an “Except trams” plate (...) or diagram 953.1 (...) are provided... The “no entry” sign is most likely to be appropriate where drivers might be tempted to or accidentally follow a tramway that becomes off‑street, resulting in vehicles becoming stranded on the tram tracks

 

To me that's strongly steering people towards using the No Entry.  

 

The people involved were much more interested in getting the message over to drivers that they shouldn't go down the tramway than in prosecuting them if they did, having often having to suspend the service for some time while a vehicle was dragged off a ballasted track section.  I've an idea they used both signs in the end, along with various other visual deterrents, so the No Entry actually conveyed the message and the Tram Only (953.1) allowed them to cite an offence. 

[Bomag]

7 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Not sure I understand this fully - the detailed stuff was dealt with by colleagues who are highway engineers, presumably competent ones, and not by me.  

 

However, after delving into the Manual, I think you are re-stating the point about the No Entry sign not being legally enforceable, something I noted several posts back. But the current Manual states:

 

 

To me that's strongly steering people towards using the No Entry.  

 

The people involved were much more interested in getting the message over to drivers that they shouldn't go down the tramway than in prosecuting them if they did, having often having to suspend the service for some time while a vehicle was dragged off a ballasted track section.  I've an idea they used both signs in the end, along with various other visual deterrents, so the No Entry actually conveyed the message and the Tram Only (953.1) allowed them to cite an offence. 

 

The TSM refers to both on-street tramway (or tram only road) where either Diagram 616+plate, or if at a tram gate Dia 953.1, would be appropriate and off-street tramway where Diagram 953.1 would be needed. It could be read that if there is an option to sign either then 616+plate is preferable since the nature of the highway would be more aligned with what road users would expect.  This is not in my section of TSM and the author of the relevant bit is still on leave until next week.

 

It would be wise to be very careful in assuming LHA highways engineers (or consultants) would be competent signing practitioners wrt to this level of signing issue. In any event, as mentioned several times to designers, when designing road geometry at the start of dedicated tram tracks which are not on-street tramways (or tram only road)  then the nature of the layout should be clear to road user and by default make it harder for them to head up the tram tracks than the road. This is similar, but not the same, as designing junctions to stop, or reduce wrong way driving where geometry is used to make only the very confused or drunk likely to take the wrong route. This is different than on on-street tramway (and particularly if the restrictions in the opposite direction may result in vehicles approaching) where it is easier to be uncertain and if the section is short see a benefit of cutting through e.g. Exchange Square Station where the tram route is paved and open to non-motorised vehicles and pedestrians (plus the usual exceptions)