Level crossing stupidity...

[PaulRhB]

So why are the BTP looking for this suspect?  Surely the driver should allow the idiot to board then radio the BTP for a reception party at the next station.

That's assuming they have sufficient resources in the area, the local police might be asked to attend but wouldn't count it as an emergency, so chances are he would get what he aimed for, his ride and no consequence, and the lesson doesnt sink in. Stopping him travelling proves that its pointless and stops them attempting it again if they know they won't get on.

We have to accept the Police don't have loads of spare manpower either but there are other ways of getting the message across, the video evidence hopefully allows it to be followed up. The no travel response on the day is highly likely to stop him and any direct witness from trying anything so stupid as he didn't get on. Even if he gets on and arrested later witnesses left behind would think he got away with it.

[Jack]

Right I'm not defending any muppets that try and 'run' level crossings, but I can see why, in frustration some people are tempted ...

 

... a couple of days ago I was driving along the A323 in Ash, Surrey.  It crosses the railway line right by Ash station (literally, the crossing as at the end of the platform).  The crossing lights come on, the barriers go down and everyone obediently stops.  There isn't a train in the platform.  We then have to wait 8.5 minutes for the train to appear, doing about 20mph.  It is travelling from the opposite side to the station.

 

I wasn't in a hurry, but I could tell the van driver behind me was.  Why oh why did we have to wait so long?  I could understand it from a technical point of view if the train had been stopped over the sensors in the station, but it hadn't, it must have been miles down the track when the barriers went down.

 

Like I said, whilst I don't in any way shape or form condone stupidity, I can see why it occurs ...

[Jonboy]

IMHO I think the answer to that is it costs the railway less to manage it that way...If the railways were run for the public benefit then the wider costs to society could be taken into account in these decisions...but I will not go further into this to ensure I stay within forum rules

[Neil]

I know we view level crossing stupidity from a railway centric perspective (how can Joe or Jo public be so unaware of the dangers of the railway and the risks they take) but I'm wondering if it isn't best understood in the context of stupidity behind the wheel, handlebars or while on foot. Though apparently we have some of the best driving standards in the world and consequently low accident rates there are some ridiculously risky examples of driving happening around us on most journeys, and it would be foolish to assume that the perpetrators suddenly take due care on and around level crossings.

[beast66606]

Right I'm not defending any muppets that try and 'run' level crossings, but I can see why, in frustration some people are tempted ...

 

... a couple of days ago I was driving along the A323 in Ash, Surrey.  It crosses the railway line right by Ash station (literally, the crossing as at the end of the platform).  The crossing lights come on, the barriers go down and everyone obediently stops.  There isn't a train in the platform.  We then have to wait 8.5 minutes for the train to appear, doing about 20mph.  It is travelling from the opposite side to the station.

 

I wasn't in a hurry, but I could tell the van driver behind me was.  Why oh why did we have to wait so long?  I could understand it from a technical point of view if the train had been stopped over the sensors in the station, but it hadn't, it must have been miles down the track when the barriers went down.

 

Like I said, whilst I don't in any way shape or form condone stupidity, I can see why it occurs ...

 

The barriers are supervised, so interlocked with the signals. Assuming the "two greens" is applied on that line the train would be a couple of miles (it looks to be 3-aspect signalling) away when the barriers drop, if there is a speed restriction then it could take several minutes for the train to arrive. "Effecient" working of the level crossing is down to the signallers knowing the line, any restrictions and signalling accordingly, but I'm guessing the procedures state the barriers must be lowered by a given point to avoid delay minutes.

 

Patience leads to less patients though.

[The Stationmaster]

IMHO I think the answer to that is it costs the railway less to manage it that way...If the railways were run for the public benefit then the wider costs to society could be taken into account in these decisions...but I will not go further into this to ensure I stay within forum rules

I can't understand how you have reached that conclusion.  The level crossing in question is protected by signals so that cost a pretty penny to start with and the restricted aspects will start out at braking distance or possibly slightly more.  The Ash situation could be due to several things - possibly excessive caution on the part of the operator (or his superiors), possibly a fault on the train that reduced its speed, or equally the results of a well learned lesson about the way motorists behave and take chances when the light sequence starts.  Many things could be the cause or a combination of them - which we don't know and can only guess at or consider (in the case of some of us) from experience.

 

Thatcham Crossing is another CCTV crossing where motorists can experience long delays - I have waited there for nearly 11 minutes (timed) on one occasion and waits of 4 - 5 minutes are quite common but what is the alternative?  The highway authority/county council won't fund a bridge, an automatic crossing would reduce many road waits to under 1 minute but the traffic levels are such that an automatic crossing is not permitted in that location - so you get what there is, and it's hardly 'costing the railway less to manage'

[avonside1563]

The level crossing at Barlaston, nr. Stone on the Trent Valley line is a classic one. IIRC it is remotely operated from Stoke power box and when the line was being used as a diversion for the WCML between Colwich and Crewe the frequency of trains was such that the barriers would stay down for a long time. Apparently the record was a little over 45 minutes, and I once waited over 15 minutes at it.

[10800]

I wondered (briefly) whether an indicator at the crossing displaying how far away (distance and/or time) the train was might be helpful to reduce frustration, such as they have countdowns for traffic crossing lights in some places in Europe; but then it would only probably encourage the muppets to chance it even more ('45 seconds - no problem, go for it').

 

Turn the engine off, chill out, open the window for some fresh air, 10 minutes won't kill you but the alternative might.

[Jonboy]

I can't understand how you have reached that conclusion.  The level crossing in question is protected by signals so that cost a pretty penny to start with and the restricted aspects will start out at braking distance or possibly slightly more.  The Ash situation could be due to several things - possibly excessive caution on the part of the operator (or his superiors), possibly a fault on the train that reduced its speed, or equally the results of a well learned lesson about the way motorists behave and take chances when the light sequence starts.  Many things could be the cause or a combination of them - which we don't know and can only guess at or consider (in the case of some of us) from experience.

 

 

Simply because if the wider economy effects were taken into account these crossings may well still be under local, knowledgeable control rather than CCTV control from many miles away from the situation. However CCTV control is cheaper than a number of bods in boxes along the line, so the railway justifies its current procedures on a cost to the railway basis.

[beast66606]

Simply because if the wider economy effects were taken into account these crossings may well still be under local, knowledgeable control rather than CCTV control from many miles away from the situation. However CCTV control is cheaper than a number of bods in boxes along the line, so the railway justifies its current procedures on a cost to the railway basis.

 

My local line was resignalled last year and all the boxes abolished, replaced by crossings controlled by Cambridge PSB - the barriers are now down for less time (when they work!) simply because the track circuits are arranged at the optimum place to get the barriers down, give a green to the train and minimise delays to the road users - I bet most people would claim they were down for longer though, but they forget that the bobby wandering out to close the gates (when the train was much further away than it is now when the sequence starts), wandering back in, operating the levers to clear the signals all takes time. The train drivers now see the signals change as they approach, in the mechanical days the signals would already be off long before they were visible to the drivers (the positions didn't change significantly)

 

(I'd sooner have the mechanical stuff though)

[The Stationmaster]

Simply because if the wider economy effects were taken into account these crossings may well still be under local, knowledgeable control rather than CCTV control from many miles away from the situation. However CCTV control is cheaper than a number of bods in boxes along the line, so the railway justifies its current procedures on a cost to the railway basis.

But what difference does that make if it is under local control?  The signals will still be in the same place (if it's modern signalling), the strike-in points will be the same, the light and barrier sequences will start at the same time.  The only difference comes when an automatic crossing is involved where there can be a considerable time difference because of the basic 27 second strike-in time (there being certain criteria to allow for varying train speeds which can increase that time)  when new signalling is fully adjusted to train speeds etc as Beast has described.

 

Thus the man who - at present - works Thatcham also works other crossings, one of which is right in front of him and he works to the necessary strike-in/annunciator points for operating any of them (or he should do).  On one of my past patches we had exactly the same, a chap who supervised a crossing right in front of him also had a CCTV crossing under his control - operated to the same procedure based on strike-in points etc.

 

And going right back to a place I knew well (in my youth) with manual gates worked by a wheel in the 'box exactly the same applied - the gates were shut against road traffic when trains were in a certain position.  And interestingly in one case at a nearby gate 'box the Attendant though a train had passed, put back the signals, opened the gates and a car drove onto the crossing - alas for the occupants of the car an A4 pacific was considerably bigger and stronger than an Austin A70, so Moreton-On-Lugg was not the first and even having someone at the gates doesn't necessarily ensure safety or save time.

[caradoc]

IMHO I think the answer to that is it costs the railway less to manage it that way...If the railways were run for the public benefit then the wider costs to society could be taken into account in these decisions...but I will not go further into this to ensure I stay within forum rules

 

Are you saying Jonboy that the railways should not be run efficiently but instead should be some sort of national job creation scheme ? I don't see any Government going for that. In fact, given the latest edict from the ORR telling Network Rail to reduce its costs (by billions) while at the same time improving safety and reliability, the exact opposite will occur.

[Jonboy]

No I am suggesting they should be run as part of an integrated transport system that considers wider impacts than just that within the four foot.

 

I just plain don't understand how a wait of 8.5 minutes for a single train to pass can be justified - especially as anecdotal evidence suggests this is not unusual across the network

[avonside1563]

Sounds like you're an advocate for the level crossing replacement programme Jonboy?

[The Stationmaster]

No I am suggesting they should be run as part of an integrated transport system that considers wider impacts than just that within the four foot.

 

I just plain don't understand how a wait of 8.5 minutes for a single train to pass can be justified - especially as anecdotal evidence suggests this is not unusual across the network

Simple answer to that - build bridges.  Simple response to that, all the way down from Downing Street to your local councillor - we can't afford to except in special cases.  And hardly surprising as it often requires other roadworks and can mean demolishing buildings etc - thus, for example, one scheme has been estimated to cost £10-15 million.  Average cost of a footbridge - £1million (albeit several years ago so update for inflation.

 

So to replace level crossings will cost money and the main beneficiary will be motorists so probably a good idea to put say £10-20 on Vehicle Excise Duty or whatever it's called this week and let motorists pay for it?  wait for the howls of joy horror when that gets in The DailyMail.  Not over far from where we used to live the railway proposed to close a level crossing - local residents objected to the extra couple of miles it would add to their car journeys and the District Council backed them, until a train hit a car on the crossing and several people died; I understand the council are now agreeable to the closure of Ufton Crossing.

[uax6]

Don't forget that us poor signallers are paid to run TRAINS, not road traffic. Yes we try to keep delays as short as we can, but sometimes the road traffic delay is long.

 

I also find it quite amazing the lack of attention that lots of drivers have while behind the wheel. Here we have manually swung gates, and an underpass suitable for vehicles upto and included transit size. I have lost count of the amount of drivers that come haring upto the closed gates (at more than the 30mph allowed) and then whack it into reverse to go under the underpass (often without a care for whats behind them!). The crossing is signposted so they should expect the gates to be over so they can stop....

 

But is a 5min wait (or even your 8.5 minute wait!) that long? I would say that those in a rush should leave earlier.... (why is it that passengers still turn up late for trains that are running late???)

 

Andy G

[Happy Hippo]

Looking at level crossings from a differing view point, it can be said that what was once a more than adequate and acceptable method of road and rail crossings has now become outdated.

 

I don't imagine that when level crossings were first put down between road and railway that those in power at the time ever envisaged the increase in traffic and the change from horse and cart to motor vehicle.

 

This is not just a road-rail phenomenon as it happens purely on roads as well.

 

The A14 is a prime example.  When first opened, it was a clear fast run, but within 5 years it was totally clogged with LGVs.

 

There are now calls to widen the road. Lack of forward planning means that any widening scheme is going to be far more costly than if the road had been built  with three lanes in the same direction in the first instance.  the same with a lot of the old two lane motorways, which needed extensive modification to become barely fit for purpose.

 

The railways have been around a lot longer than the motor vehicle, and will continue to be an important segment of the transport infrastructure of this country.

 

If the rules regarding level crossings are followed, then there is little risk to those crossing the railway.  However, we are unable to factor into this equation that some members of the human race are both ignorant of railways and sadly terminally stupid when it comes to their own personal safety................. The young mother who hustles her children across a pelican crossing when the red man is clearly showing, is setting her children a very poor example when it comes to traffic discipline.  Throw in the added distraction of the Ipod and headphones or a mobile phone which commands all of their attention and are you then surprised when one of them is later tragically killed in a collision with a vehicle/train?

 

Regards

 

Richard

Edited July 4, 2013 by Happy Hippo

[trisonic]

You could put it more simply by saying, they only kill stupid people...

Tough but true.

 

Best Pete.

[The Stationmaster]

You could put it more simply by saying, they only kill stupid people...

Tough but true.

 

Best Pete.

There have been occasional exceptions Pete (e.g Moreton-On-Lugg and the one I mentioned - which was in 1952)  but they are extremely rare and virtually statistically insignificant, unless you happen to be the statistic.

[trisonic]

An unfortunate exception, Mike!

Best, Pete.

[martin_wynne]

The road driver was not at fault in this one reported by RAIB today:

 

http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/current_investigations_register/130606_llandovery.cfm

 

Martin.

[lmsforever]

The crossing at Thatcham is a busy one I often used to get caught there on a daily basis when I worked ,I did not mind as I was interested in what was on the  railway.The looks on other peoples faces were a picture they obviously felt affronted because of being held up by a train! Luckily in our local area we only have one crossing and that seems to be respected and its on a single line and is well sighted.

[SM42]

Unfortunately level crossing ( all types) misuse is a daily occurrence whether by deliberate action or sheer carelesness.

 

I think the general standard of driving has fallen since I started and now any red light seems to say "2 more and bus please". Considering the higher levels of technology available to detect such crimes, I find it surprising that people still take the risk, not only of prosecution but also of death and injury.

 

I wonder how many car drivers realise amber means stop. It does not mean accelerate.

 

Better enforcemant may make a difference over the longer term but there are just too many crossings for this to be practical in all cases and once someone gets away with it once then this may set a precedent for them which could ultimately lead to disaster.

 

The only sure fire way to stop this is to close the crossing, But again this is not always practical.

 

Education and enforcement are the only realistic (in every case)  options available and considerable time and effort is spent on this, not just in the UK but across the world.

 

 

Finally a story.

 

Mrs SM42 and I regularly drive to Poland to see her family. Our route took us over several level crossings. At one particular crossing Mrs SM42 always took a sharp breath as we passed over it at several tens of kph. On about the fifth occasion that this happened I asked what the yellow sign under the traffic lights meant (it had been there on each occasion) Mrs SM42 kindly informed me that it said "Traffic lights not working, stop and check it is safe before crossing"

 

We don't go that way now.

 

Andy

[Trofimow]

Finally a story.

 

Mrs SM42 and I regularly drive to Poland to see her family. Our route took us over several level crossings. At one particular crossing Mrs SM42 always took a sharp breath as we passed over it at several tens of kph. On about the fifth occasion that this happened I asked what the yellow sign under the traffic lights meant (it had been there on each occasion) Mrs SM42 kindly informed me that it said "Traffic lights not working, stop and check it is safe before crossing"

 

We don't go that way now.

 

Andy

 

Hmmmm.

 

You weren't driving a green mercedes by any chance?

[edcayton]

Of course in most cases the road was there before the railway, so the level crossing could be seen as a temporary expedient before the railway provided a safe crossing eg a bridge. (it won't let me do a "tongue-in-cheek" smiley)

 

Ed