Level crossing stupidity...

[Satan's Goldfish]

^ What he said!

[The Stationmaster]

Sunset is at 16:28 tomorrow (in PR) which means the stragglers will be crossing in darkness for at least an hour, my mind is boggling.

Yes, and judging by Google Maps the crossing is approached by trains on a long left hand curve with the nearside quite thick with trees which might well muffle sound.  Not a very clever idea on the part of those arranging this event.  And what exactly are the 'marshals' going to do - hope they have better luck than those at a particular French cycle race not too long ago?

Edited November 6, 2015 by The Stationmaster

[kevinlms]

Just when you think you have seen it all, this is a genuine 'late notice' as posted in tge safety cases at depots sent to me by a former work collegue

 

So the race only crosses the Down line, but not the Up?

[big jim]

Yes, its where the line splits south of princes risborough, they are on 2 different levels so when it comes to crossing the up side they will do so by a bridge

 

I believe the up formation is the old broad gauge GWR formation and the down is a newer joint line (gw/gc) formation with a shallower incline

 

And as mike says its a nasty crossing on a bend, i actually hit a labrador there one day

[Foulounoux]

This ring any bells?

Mike

For me it rings many bells. We used to live at Bengeo and the tunnel used was Molewood Tunnel

 

Weeks after filming this film we were playing in the woods behind our house which ran down to the railway and watched incredulous as three teenagers reenacted end the tunnel scene. Thankfully we were able to scramble home in time to get parents to phone Hertford north station and they despatched police to catch the offenders as well as warning the signalman.

 

Colin

[RJS1977]

For me it rings many bells. We used to live at Bengeo and the tunnel used was Molewood Tunnel

 

Weeks after filming this film we were playing in the woods behind our house which ran down to the railway and watched incredulous as three teenagers reenacted end the tunnel scene. Thankfully we were able to scramble home in time to get parents to phone Hertford north station and they despatched police to catch the offenders as well as warning the signalman.

 

Colin

 

That's the trouble with that film. Watching it just now (first time I'd seen it), I could see how impressionable youngsters could watch it and think "that looks fun!"

 

Unfortunately to be suitable for a young audience the film doesn't really show the full likely result of impact with a train (dismemberment), and perhaps the fact some of the dead bodies in the last scene were clearly breathing didn't help much either!

[The Stationmaster]

Yes, its where the line splits south of princes risborough, they are on 2 different levels so when it comes to crossing the up side they will do so by a bridge

 

I believe the up formation is the old broad gauge GWR formation and the down is a newer joint line (gw/gc) formation with a shallower incline

 

And as mike says its a nasty crossing on a bend, i actually hit a labrador there one day

Yes Jim - the Down Line was the original single line of the Wycombe Railway's extension to Princes Risborough and then on to Aylesbury.  Subsequently taken over by the GWR it later became part of the GWR/GCR Joint Line which was when the doubling took place with the new Up Line on a much easier, and more expensive to construct, alignment.  The Down Line has nearly a mile dropping at 1 in 100 and the best part of half a mile dropping at 1 in 88, the Up Line has a consistent rising gradient of 1 in 167 - quite a difference.

[big jim]

And the bridge at saunderton end of the alignment where the lines begin to diverge is 1/2 blue engineers brick (on the gwr side) and red brick (on the gc side)

[Dagworth]

And the bridge at saunderton end of the alignment where the lines begin to diverge is 1/2 blue engineers brick (on the gwr side) and red brick (on the gc side)

This one? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6905108,-0.8337322,3a,75y,299.39h,58.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw83cY7o4-Mw5sZWgSvr0dA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

If you modelled that you'd get given hell

[durham light infantry]

That's the trouble with that film. Watching it just now (first time I'd seen it), I could see how impressionable youngsters could watch it and think "that looks fun!"

 

Unfortunately to be suitable for a young audience the film doesn't really show the full likely result of impact with a train (dismemberment), and perhaps the fact some of the dead bodies in the last scene were clearly breathing didn't help much either!

IIRC It was banned from being showed in schools, yet went on to win awards. It's twin "Robbie" was regularly shown in schools by the BTP. Perhaps that's the tack a modern Network Rail version should take. Less gore (which wouldn't shock nowadays anyway), and more the loss of a promising future.

 

Mike

[Budgie]

This one? ...

If you modelled that you'd get given hell

Not if you had some photographs there to show the doubting so-and-sos.

[Foulounoux]

IIRC It was banned from being showed in schools, yet went on to win awards. It's twin "Robbie" was regularly shown in schools by the BTP. Perhaps that's the tack a modern Network Rail version should take. Less gore (which wouldn't shock nowadays anyway), and more the loss of a promising future.

Mike

All I can remeber is having nightmares after seeing it....maybe our reaction was worse as it was the local railway line so it seemed more real.

[beast66606]

I wish I'd been nearer and able to clearly photograph this incident and get the b&&&&&&& prosecuted.

 

I was at Eccles Road for the stone train and the stopping passenger (one of two per day in that direction) was running slowly, probably due to railhead conditions, this had caused a backlog of 6 or so cars at Eccles - at 07:00 in the morning that's unheard of, so the barriers must have been down for a while. As I was driving down the unit went over and the cars all headed off, I parked and wandered onto the platform. I'd set my video cameras up for the stone when I noticed the local still slowly ambling away, I also noticed a headlight at Hargham Road (half) barriers at a funny angle - the way when somethings out of the norm it suddenly becomes very visible. I grabbed my camera as I realised it was a barrier weaver. Unfortunately this was the only shot I got and, of course, it's from a long way away and useless for anything legal. It's just possible to make out the rear of the car vanishing behind the unit which was probably a couple of hundred yards from the crossing at the time.

 

 

They drive among us.

[LMS2968]

Ten out of ten for effort, though, Beast. Sad to say, I'm sure you'll get another chance.

[Limpley Stoker]

Network Rail insist the modern level crossings are safer than the good old fashioned gated crossings :surely a physical gate with well maintained Victorian mechanism is the safest, but most expensive option.

I'm with the planners in Sussex in preventing NR replacing the grade 2 listed gates in Plumpton. Even dogs can't get through the gates!

[Guest]

They drive among us.

 

No doubt the journey the "weaver" was taking was ultra-important and he/she could not afford to be delayed another millisecond. When tw_ts (insert your own vowel) like that are caught and prosecuted I don't think it teaches them anything. Maybe if their car were to be crushed...? I usually get set upon by the tree hugger/civil liberties types whenever I suggest that being run over by a few hundred tonnes of train would teach these muppets a lesson but I wouldn't wish that scenario on the train driver or any other witness. Dave's "They drive among us" comment is frighteningly true. Even more frightening... they breed.

[The Stationmaster]

Network Rail insist the modern level crossings are safer than the good old fashioned gated crossings :surely a physical gate with well maintained Victorian mechanism is the safest, but most expensive option.

I'm with the planners in Sussex in preventing NR replacing the grade 2 listed gates in Plumpton. Even dogs can't get through the gates!

It all depends which figures you look at and how they are presented.  Until barrier crossings became very widespread incidents at gated crossing were at a significantly higher overall rate (i.e adjusted to reflect the differing quantities of the various types of crossing) that those at crossings with barriers.  Such data was often presented as part of the reasoning behind level crossing conversions.

 

These figures cover the period 1970-75 for BR

 

Manned Gated Crossings at 31.12.75 - 1,269, average number 1970 -75 - 1,419

Accidents 1970-75

Average number per year - 63.3, average number of persons killed per year - 3.3, % accident rate per year - 4.4%, % rate number of persons killed per year - 0.2%

 

Manually Controlled Barriers (including CCTV monitored) at 31.12.75 - 394, average number 1970 - 75 - 250

Accidents 1970 -75

Average number per year - 1, average number of persons killed per year - 0, % accident rate per year - 0.4%, % rate persons killed per year - 0

 

AHB Crossings at 31,12 .75 - 224, average number 1970-75 215

Accidents 1970-75

Average number per year - 3.7, average number of persons killed per year - 0.5, % Accident rate per year - 1.7%, % rate of persons killed per year 0.2%

 

There is no comparable information for AOC/AOC(L) crossings as the above data is from a Report looking into greater use of these types of crossing.  It can easily be seen that by every measure the traditional gated level crossing had both the highest number of accidents but more significantly by far the highest rate of accidents and a  percentage rate of fatalities which was on a par with AHB crossings.  These figures were not in the least way very much difference with general UK accident rates at the various types of level crossing over an even longer period of time.

 

BUT one thing should be borne in mind - one of the most common type of incident at gated crossings was motorists colliding with the gates whether or not that subsequently brought them into collision with a train plus the far, far rarer instance of the gates being open to road traffic when they should have been closed (I don't think there were any such incidents in the period dealt with above.  But overall apart from any economic argument in favour of automation there was a very clear indication that statistically such crossings were no more dangerous than (and in many respects less dangerous than traditional fully gated crossings).

 

 

Perhaps the title of this thread and Beast's recent post indicate the reason why things might have changed at automatic crossings since the 1970s - there are more idiots driving motor vehicles and not even solid Victorian gates will necessarily stop them going for a Darwin Award.

Edited November 17, 2015 by The Stationmaster

[PhilJ W]

I wish I'd been nearer and able to clearly photograph this incident and get the b&&&&&&& prosecuted.

 

I was at Eccles Road for the stone train and the stopping passenger (one of two per day in that direction) was running slowly, probably due to railhead conditions, this had caused a backlog of 6 or so cars at Eccles - at 07:00 in the morning that's unheard of, so the barriers must have been down for a while. As I was driving down the unit went over and the cars all headed off, I parked and wandered onto the platform. I'd set my video cameras up for the stone when I noticed the local still slowly ambling away, I also noticed a headlight at Hargham Road (half) barriers at a funny angle - the way when somethings out of the norm it suddenly becomes very visible. I grabbed my camera as I realised it was a barrier weaver. Unfortunately this was the only shot I got and, of course, it's from a long way away and useless for anything legal. It's just possible to make out the rear of the car vanishing behind the unit which was probably a couple of hundred yards from the crossing at the time.

 

idiot.jpg

 

They drive among us.

 

 

Ten out of ten for effort, though, Beast. Sad to say, I'm sure you'll get another chance.

Next time the car driver might not get a second chance.

[Limpley Stoker]

It all depends which figures you look at and how they are presented.  Until barrier crossings became very widespread incidents at gated crossing were at a significantly higher overall rate (i.e adjusted to reflect the differing quantities of the various types of crossing) that those at crossings with barriers.  Such data was often presented as part of the reasoning behind level crossing conversions.

 

These figures cover the period 1970-75 for BR

 

Manned Gated Crossings at 31.12.75 - 1,269, average number 1970 -75 - 1,419

Accidents 1970-75

Average number per year - 63.3, average number of persons killed per year - 3.3, % accident rate per year - 4.4%, % rate number of persons killed per year - 0.2

 

Manually Controlled Barriers (including CCTV monitored) at 31.12.75 - 394, average number 1970 - 75 - 250

Accidents 1970 -75

Average number per year - 1, average number of persons killed per year - 0, % accident rate per year - 0.4%, % rate persons killed per year - 0

 

AHB Crossings at 31,12 .75 - 224, average number 1970-75 215

Accidents 1970-75

Average number per year - 3.7, average number of persons killed per year - 0.5, % Accident rate per year - 1.7%, % rate of persons killed per year 0.2%

 

There is no comparable information for AOC/AOC(L) crossings as the above data is from a Report looking into greater use of these types of crossing.  It can easily be seen that by every measure the traditional gated level crossing had both the highest number of accidents but more significantly by far the highest rate of accidents and a  percentage rate of fatalities which was on a par with AHB crossings.  These figures were not in the least way very much difference with general UK accident rates at the various types of level crossing over an even longer period of time.

 

BUT one thing should be borne in mind - one of the most common type of incident at gated crossings was motorists colliding with the gates whether or not that subsequently brought them into collision with a train plus the far, far rarer instance of the gates being open to road traffic when they should have been closed (I don't think there were any such incidents in the period dealt with above.  But overall apart from any economic argument in favour of automation there was a very clear indication that statistically such crossings were no more dangerous than (and in many respects less dangerous than traditional fully gated crossings).

 

 

Perhaps the title of this thread and Beast's recent post indicate the reason why things might have changed at automatic crossings since the 1970s - there are more idiots driving motor vehicles and not even solid Victorian gates will necessarily stop them going for a Darwin Award.

Thank you for those fascinating figures, which are presumably used by NR today. It would be interesting to drill down and find the root causes of accidents at gated crossings, and see what percentage were due to mechanical failure , presumably signals were fail safe. Did vehicles ram closed gates, or could human error on the part of the gatekeeper be possible?

The risk seeking driver is probably not a completely new phenomenon, but encouraged by the apparent ease of dodging the modern barriers.

I believe it takes a staff of three to man a gated crossing, obviously a big expense compared to a remotely controlled barrier system- cost saving is obviously the main driver for modernisation. The District Council planners at Lewes have yet to be persuaded that removal of the grade 2 listed gates can be permitted, and have placed an injunction on NR : the station building, signal box and crossing gates were listed as a group of structures.

 

 

[Edwin_m]

Thank you for those fascinating figures, which are presumably used by NR today. It would be interesting to drill down and find the root causes of accidents at gated crossings, and see what percentage were due to mechanical failure , presumably signals were fail safe. Did vehicles ram closed gates, or could human error on the part of the gatekeeper be possible?

The risk seeking driver is probably not a completely new phenomenon, but encouraged by the apparent ease of dodging the modern barriers.

I believe it takes a staff of three to man a gated crossing, obviously a big expense compared to a remotely controlled barrier system- cost saving is obviously the main driver for modernisation. The District Council planners at Lewes have yet to be persuaded that removal of the grade 2 listed gates can be permitted, and have placed an injunction on NR : the station building, signal box and crossing gates were listed as a group of structures.

About five crossing keepers would be needed if the railway was open "24/7" - I wonder if extra cover would be needed if the trains were too frequent to allow a reasonable break during the shift.  Reducing it to two shifts per day would result in train services finishing earlier than many passengers would like. 

 

Historically many gates (those not at signal boxes) had little or no protection beyond the vigilance of the crossing keeper, as the accident reports on Railways Archive illustrate.  For example many were normally closed to road traffic with the keeper working the gates for approaching road vehicles when safe to do so.  This decision often relied on the keeper deducing whether any trains were approaching by observing repeaters of the block instruments or even just listening out for a repeater of the box bell.  Not surprisingly quite a few accidents resulted when the keeper was confused, distracted or perhaps intimidated by an impatient road user.  Many of these would have gone or had extra protection installed by the time of Stationmaster's figures, but there may have been enough left to skew the accident statistics. 

 

Road traffic has increased enormously since the era when most crossings had gates, which must also have some effect on the accident statistics. 

[The Stationmaster]

Thank you for those fascinating figures, which are presumably used by NR today. It would be interesting to drill down and find the root causes of accidents at gated crossings, and see what percentage were due to mechanical failure , presumably signals were fail safe. Did vehicles ram closed gates, or could human error on the part of the gatekeeper be possible?

The risk seeking driver is probably not a completely new phenomenon, but encouraged by the apparent ease of dodging the modern barriers.

I believe it takes a staff of three to man a gated crossing, obviously a big expense compared to a remotely controlled barrier system- cost saving is obviously the main driver for modernisation. The District Council planners at Lewes have yet to be persuaded that removal of the grade 2 listed gates can be permitted, and have placed an injunction on NR : the station building, signal box and crossing gates were listed as a group of structures.

 

 

I would think more recent figures are used nowadays but I would be surprised if the 'accident' rate at gated crossings has changed noticeably although no doubt the total number of incidents has fallen as the number of gated crossings has been reduced.   It only takes one person to work a gated crossing - using either a gatewheel in the controlling signalbox/gatebox or going out and physically moving the gates, obviously one at a time in the latter case but obviously if the crossing is manned through 24 hours it will require approximately 4+ members of staff to cover it allowing for rest Days and leave etc.  But obviously even with one person there to work the crossing there is a cost and if they are a Crossing Keeper serving no other purpose it clearly puts the entire manning cost onto that crossing thus there is a considerable potential saving in manpower costs alone when a crossing is automated and even modernisation to remote CCTV supervised control will save on manning costs as the person who does that will be doing other work as well.

 

I have no recent information on the type of incidents which occur at gated crossing but from occasional press reports collisions with the gates clearly still take place and there has been at least one motorist fatality (due to a Signalman's error) at a locally controlled crossing although it had barriers instead of gates (but the principle is no different of course).

 

As far as Lewes is concerned perhaps if the local council wish to retain the crossing in its present form they should make a hefty contribution towards the cost of doing so?  (I say taht with tongue slightly in cheek but outside influences like that do drive costs and it might cause second thoughts if what it costs was known - and paid for)

Edited November 18, 2015 by The Stationmaster

[96701]

As far as Lewes is concerned perhaps if the local council wish to retain the crossing in its present form they should make a hefty contribution towards the cost of doing so?  (I say taht with tongue slightly in cheek but outside influences like that do drive costs and it might cause second thoughts if what it costs was known - and paid for)

Take a leaf out the Barmouth footpath book? http://www.b-vag.org.uk/next.html

[uax6]

I wish I'd been nearer and able to clearly photograph this incident and get the b&&&&&&& prosecuted.

 

I was at Eccles Road for the stone train and the stopping passenger (one of two per day in that direction) was running slowly, probably due to railhead conditions, this had caused a backlog of 6 or so cars at Eccles - at 07:00 in the morning that's unheard of, so the barriers must have been down for a while. As I was driving down the unit went over and the cars all headed off, I parked and wandered onto the platform. I'd set my video cameras up for the stone when I noticed the local still slowly ambling away, I also noticed a headlight at Hargham Road (half) barriers at a funny angle - the way when somethings out of the norm it suddenly becomes very visible. I grabbed my camera as I realised it was a barrier weaver. Unfortunately this was the only shot I got and, of course, it's from a long way away and useless for anything legal. It's just possible to make out the rear of the car vanishing behind the unit which was probably a couple of hundred yards from the crossing at the time.

 

idiot.jpg

 

They drive among us.

 

Interestingly Dave, Hargham barriers failed with the barriers in the lowered position after the passage of a train in the early hrs that morning, so the train would have been cautioned across the barriers just incase this sort of muppetry was going on...

 

Andy G

[uax6]

Interestingly we were discussing muppetry on level crossings in the box at changeover the other day. Harghams number 2 came up. At the time it couldn't be seen from the box at Eccles because of trees. A call came through one day of a RTA near the crossing, but far enough away not to interfer with the road traffic using the crossing, so normal running was continued on the railway. The bobby got a call a bit later on from tthe Fire Brigade on the barrie phones to say there were on site dealing with the incident. The next train through the section (from Attleborough) trundles along (were still normal running remember) and comes onto the striaght and see some blue flashing lights on the railway ahead. He stops in time to find that the fire tender is parked across the railway! The F/B had failed to tell the signalman that they wanted thr railway stopped and presumbably they parked across the railway in much the same way as they would do a main road to stop the traffic.

 

Not that this seems to be unusal behaviour. Just the other week I had a bloke hit by a train, and I stopped the traffic on the effected line as requested, but was still running on the unaffected line. Paramedic turns up and parks (unbeknown to me, and this is at night) on the affected line on an AHBc, inside the barriers. Again not telling anyone. The first train on the unaffected line just missed the car. Fortunatley I had cautioned the driver, but this damn well shook me up.

 

With a bit of luck the BTP will persue the Paramedic and inform him of the error of his ways.

 

Just another nugget of info to think about. Drivers who get invovled with this sort of incident get looked after very well, time off, counselling etc (I've seen the effect on a driver after haveing a car drive into the side of their train and the bonnet being wedged in the bogie, and got them into the box to calm them down....), but ops staff who go out to the remains just get a phone call to see whats happening and are expected back on duty the next day.....

 

Andy G

[PatB]

Interestingly we were discussing muppetry on level crossings in the box at changeover the other day. Harghams number 2 came up. At the time it couldn't be seen from the box at Eccles because of trees. A call came through one day of a RTA near the crossing, but far enough away not to interfer with the road traffic using the crossing, so normal running was continued on the railway. The bobby got a call a bit later on from tthe Fire Brigade on the barrie phones to say there were on site dealing with the incident. The next train through the section (from Attleborough) trundles along (were still normal running remember) and comes onto the striaght and see some blue flashing lights on the railway ahead. He stops in time to find that the fire tender is parked across the railway! The F/B had failed to tell the signalman that they wanted thr railway stopped and presumbably they parked across the railway in much the same way as they would do a main road to stop the traffic.

 

Not that this seems to be unusal behaviour. Just the other week I had a bloke hit by a train, and I stopped the traffic on the effected line as requested, but was still running on the unaffected line. Paramedic turns up and parks (unbeknown to me, and this is at night) on the affected line on an AHBc, inside the barriers. Again not telling anyone. The first train on the unaffected line just missed the car. Fortunatley I had cautioned the driver, but this damn well shook me up.

 

With a bit of luck the BTP will persue the Paramedic and inform him of the error of his ways.

 

Just another nugget of info to think about. Drivers who get invovled with this sort of incident get looked after very well, time off, counselling etc (I've seen the effect on a driver after haveing a car drive into the side of their train and the bonnet being wedged in the bogie, and got them into the box to calm them down....), but ops staff who go out to the remains just get a phone call to see whats happening and are expected back on duty the next day.....

 

Andy G

 

Whilst the emergency responders involved in the two incidents described should have known better, the fact that they clearly did not would seem to point to a serious deficiency in the training of incident response personnel. Perhaps attempting to remedy this at a system level would be more useful than the pursuit of individuals.