Level crossing stupidity...

[Arthur]

 

What does 5mph or less mean? You cannot exceed 5mph, you don't think you'll get to 5mph by the time you hit the crossing, you won't average 5mph between starting and stopping the other side?

 

5mph is very slow for any motorised vehicle, my old Nuffield will hit 20 mph. I think most road users would read that and think, 'Oh, I'm good for better than 5mph'.

[Colin_McLeod]

Before we all get hung up on the tractor driver saying 30 seconds, remember that the 30 seconds issue was just part of Beast's speculation or example on post #1374.

[martin_wynne]

What does 5mph or less mean? You cannot exceed 5mph, you don't think you'll get to 5mph by the time you hit the crossing, you won't average 5mph between starting and stopping the other side?

 

Presumably it means doing 5mph or less when you reach the sign?

 

The signaller's instructions also refer to small-wheeled vehicles which might get trapped, such as a pedestrian pushing a child's pushchair. Is there any mention of that on the signage?

 

Martin.

[The Stationmaster]

While Titan posted that picture to answer a specific question don't forget this incident occurred at a UWC (User Worked Crossing) not at an automatic one.  Immediately that information restricts the number of people likely to be using the crossing and the sort of things they are likely to be crossing with and in most country areas (still I suspect) locally based Signalmen (sorry, '...lers') will have a  pretty good idea of what is likely to be involved when they're told 'its a tractor and trailer' or whatever.

 

The modern Instructions issued by RSSB for level crossings include quite a number of generalisations so they do need to be read very much in the context of the type of crossing and - what we don't know - any relevant Signalbox Special Instructions.

 

I have, fortunately, only ever been involved wit a couple of incidents at UWCs and in one case while the farmer was quite clear that he would be crossing with animals a trainee Signalman erred and a number of beasts were killed - that was down to the Signalman.  In the other case - at a crossing without a telephone - the farmer was 'too busy' to bother to call from the house before he went to the crossing (only a few hundred yards away) and crossed with a herd of 40 heffers with little control over them in terms of human or canine assistance; the number killed on that occasion was well into double figures.

 

In other words there can be all sorts of circumstances and factors involved and without clearly knowing them it is not too difficult to shoot from the hip when allocating responsibilty.  I had one crossing on my patch where the farmer made a  regular habit of checking before he crossed - but as he 'expected to be back in a few minutes on his return trip' he had an equally regular habit of not calling before he came back over the crossing.

 

PS Incidentally as I still have an occasional involvement with various parts of the railway industry occasionally undertaling operational safety assessments/auditsk and drafting Rules, Regulations, and Instructions (which can involve such items being assessed by ORR personnel) there's no way I'm going to use my own name on a public web forum.  I think you will find also that the vast majority of presently employed or, like me retired from, the national network railway staff who post on RMweb do not - for a variety of reasons - post under their own names as they wish to maintain sufficient privacy and anonymity to allow them to post the benefits of their experience.  We are, speaking of the ones I know, from a wide variety of backgrounds and experience within the industry and some of us held - or still hold - quite senior positions.

 

If people wish to take no notice of our contributions becuase we don't use our real names that is up to them but if you did know mine I'm sorry to say that it would lead, among other things, to the probably mind numbing boredom of reading (post privatisation) access dispute resolution committee minutes and I doubt anybody would thank me for an introductory route to that subject.

Edited April 22, 2016 by The Stationmaster

[avonside1563]

What does 5mph or less mean? You cannot exceed 5mph, you don't think you'll get to 5mph by the time you hit the crossing, you won't average 5mph between starting and stopping the other side?

 

5mph is very slow for any motorised vehicle, my old Nuffield will hit 20 mph. I think most road users would read that and think, 'Oh, I'm good for better than 5mph'.

All steam rollers and agricultural road engines travel at around 5mph and as they have to slow right down over the crossing to avoid undue vibrations and damage clattering over the rails it is always prudent to stop at a level crossing and call the controlling box.

[Colin_McLeod]

Stationmaster even though I am a former General Manager of the Operations Division of Northern Ireland Railways I have no problem using my real name. If I am unsure of something I either say so or don't make a post.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Colin_McLeod

[Guest]

Real name, no name... wtf does it matter??? I'd happily read and take notice of a post by either Chris_Green or Big_Bird.

Pete. Dave.

[martin_wynne]

Real name, no name... wtf does it matter??? I'd happily read and take notice of a post by either Chris_Green or Big_Bird.

Pete. Dave.

 

Because when Kermit The Frog claims to have some information which he can't reveal, we have no way to check the credibility of the claim. He might be a senior railway manager, a 14-year-old schoolboy, a little old lady running a tea-shop, or me.

 

Martin.

[Gary H]

I have an uneasy feeling in automatically assuming that it was the signaller who gave the tractor driver permission to cross.

The initial RAIB statement doesn't even say that the phone was used to call the signaller.

He did have permission to use the crossing, but by whom?

[russ p]

Look East have just reported that the signalman at Cambridge gave permission for the tractor to cross

[beast66606]

Because when Kermit The Frog claims to have some information which he can't reveal, we have no way to check the credibility of the claim. He might be a senior railway manager, a 14-year-old schoolboy, a little old lady running a tea-shop, or me.

 

Martin.

 

Off topic.

 

My name is Sir William Stanier FRS - but how do you know if I'm telling the truth ? - just because my forum name says so, or I claim to be him doesn't make it true.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Look East have just reported that the signalman at Cambridge gave permission for the tractor to cross

Until we know what was asked for by the driver and what was said by the signaller this is just becomes another line of uninformed speculation.

[beast66606]

Look East have just reported that the signalman at Cambridge gave permission for the tractor to cross

 

Keep up Russ

[The Stationmaster]

Stationmaster even though I am a former General Manager of the Operations Division of Northern Ireland Railways I have no problem using my real name. If I am unsure of something I either say so or don't make a post.

 

Each to their own Colin.  You have your reasons and I have mine (just as others have theirs).

 

Apart from anything else I don't use my own name anywhere on the 'net except for Linked-In (and someone else initially put me on there anyway) - on here I just use a recognisable railway equivalent of a job I was doing back in the 1970s because it probably means more to many people than Area Manager.  If people don't trust what i have to say that's up to them, no skin off my nose.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Off topic.

 

My name is Sir William Stanier FRS - but how do you know if I'm telling the truth ? - just because my forum name says so, or I claim to be him doesn't make it true.

  For many Sir William was capable of walking on water but as he would be now approaching his 140th birthday I think it more likely your name is Dave.

[russ p]

Keep up Russ

 

Oops,sorry haven't kept up with this today .been working in the garden sorry!

[martin_wynne]

My name is Sir William Stanier FRS - but how do you know if I'm telling the truth ? - just because my forum name says so, or I claim to be him doesn't make it true.

 

Falsely claiming to be a living person would be unwise. Expect a letter from a solicitor.

 

Isambard.

[Kenton]

 

Falsely claiming to be a living person would be unwise. Expect a letter from a solicitor.

 

Isambard.

Just not enough of them to go round

 

John Smith

 

Back on topic - sort of - I am picking up a lot of general information on level crossings from this topic - but am still puzzled by this gated user operated crossing. In my total ignorance I would have thought that the opening of the gate would have triggered some sort of indication to the signalman. Sure the "permitted" user would know to pick up the phone and of course can be relied upon to perform that procedure? but what is there to stop the ignorant person without permission from doing so. It just doesn't seem to me to be a "fail safe" system. I know there is a cost implication, but when set against the potential cost it seems to be insignificant.

[62613]

  Just not enough of them to go round

 

John Smith

 

Sure the "permitted" user would know to pick up the phone and of course can be relied upon to perform that procedure.

A read through the unmanned level crossing accidents on The Railways Archive would soon have you changing your mind!

[The Stationmaster]

  Just not enough of them to go round

 

John Smith

 

Back on topic - sort of - I am picking up a lot of general information on level crossings from this topic - but am still puzzled by this gated user operated crossing. In my total ignorance I would have thought that the opening of the gate would have triggered some sort of indication to the signalman. Sure the "permitted" user would know to pick up the phone and of course can be relied upon to perform that procedure? but what is there to stop the ignorant person without permission from doing so. It just doesn't seem to me to be a "fail safe" system. I know there is a cost implication, but when set against the potential cost it seems to be insignificant.

 

This might help a bit Kenton

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/uploadedFiles/networkrailcouk/Contents/Safety/Level_Crossings/Documents/UserWorkedCrossingsObligationsAndResponsibilities.pdf

 

Basically exactly what it says on the tin - the crossing is worked by the user and normally seems to come with field type gates (there are variations from that).  In the past they weren't even regarded as 'level crossings' if they were an occupation or accommodation crossing although some have long had telephones to the nearest signalbox.

[royaloak]

Look East have just reported that the signalman at Cambridge gave permission for the tractor to cross

What time was the permission asked for, what did the farmer state he would be crossing with and what was his expected crossing occupancy, what time was the permission granted, exactly what did the permission permit, how long after getting permission did the incident take place?

 

These questions are just as important as the statement 'permission was granted'.

[PaulRhB]

The definitions of vehicle type were further defined in a document from the Signalling Inspector on our area.

A tractor on its own doesn't count as slow moving or large, (Combines, tanks etc would count as large single vehicles), but a tractor with trailer does because there's increased risk of the trailer grounding or catching gate posts as they don't always have a clear 90° angle of crossing.

If the user is vague then you question them further but you have to go on the time they ask for. If there's any doubt you get them to call back.

[uax6]

large, low and slow is left to the signaller to decide when someone calls in from a crossing. The local knowledge of the bobby comes into play here as well, as he should know if the crossing is flat, or has the crossing on an embankment. Obviously you will treat these two crossings differently.

Then of course there is the variables of the conversation with the drivers. There is the comically dangerous conversation that was played out one day at one of the old boxes down there, which went something like this:

'Signaller x box'

'I have tractor and trailer. I cross?' In thick Eastern European voice.

'No, there is a train approaching'

'Ok, I cross' and the phone is slammed down.

The train reports a near miss (which should of course be a near hit!).

 

The uwc crossings are what I would define as the most dangerous on the network. Some are frequently used, some are not. Some have telephones (which means they have poor sighting), but most do not. The permitted users are usually farms, who of course employ casual staff, so may or may not be familiar with who you cross, or how far you can see and still get across.

This last point was brought home to me one day when I went out to black horse drove crossing on the Lynn road. This crossing was the scene of a serious accident with a tractor and trailer and train. The sighting in South is very good, you can see for miles. From the north it is not as good at all. There is a curve just after the crossing which cuts a lot of view out. The railway is on an embankment, and the crossing is provided with red-greens. We had looked about, and then crossed the crossing. I wasn't driving so I did the gates. Got the gates open and the car across, then I went back to shut the gates. As I did this the lights changed to red, so I looked to see which way the train was coming. I could just about see the lights on the 365 when I looked South. I thought at that time that you could probably get across quite easily, but being a railwayman I waited. I was quite surprised at how quickly that train was at the crossing, about 30-45 seconds... Now how would the public react to that?

I'Il tell you how, because I see it everyday in work. They tend to ignore the lights when they can't see the train, and ignore the lights when they can see a train is going slowly....

Why? Because the general public think a train can stop much the same as a car. The 365 can stop from max speed in about 1000yds depending on track conditions, but our 2000ton sand trains still need the best part of a mile and quarter to come to a stand.

[duncan]

Following on from Kenton's question, do the "authorised users" of occupation crossings receive written information from NR on how to use "their" crossing ?

 

 

From Andy's post, an employer should ensure that his employees are able to operate "whatever" etc, be it language, appropriate licences, vehicles, or anything else  ( I am not suggesting this was the case in this crash ).

[martin_wynne]

Because the general public think a train can stop much the same as a car.

 

I agree. If you talk to members of the general public after a level crossing accident has been in the news, this belief is common. "Why didn't the train stop when it saw the car?"

 

A big red sign saying "THE TRAIN CANNOT STOP" would seem to be an obvious safety improvement at level crossings. I may have mentioned this before.

 

Martin.