Level crossing stupidity...

[John M Upton]

The two idiots on the moped in Sussex have apparently been nicked!  The moped was stolen (no surprise there) and when the Sussex Constabulary finished throwing the book at them for all the usual motoring offences, the BTP stepped up and threw another book at them with all the endangering the railway offences they could think of.

 

Probably only get a six month suspended anyway....

[JDW]

 

Just saw this on YouTube. As much as I have sympathy for a lorry driver trying to get into a tight space, I'd bet that he didn't phone the signalman before stopping and reversing on the crossing...  Whichever way he tried, it was going to be bad - if he'd arrived across the crossing and stopped to reverse in, he'd have ended up with cars stopped across the crossing and up behind him. 

[grahame]

Not much sympathy for drivers who hit things, it shows a lack of spacial awareness and no appreciation of the size of their vehicle. That light post could have been a mother with a child in a pram.

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by grahame

[johnofwessex]

9 hours ago, grahame said:

Not much sympathy for drivers who hit things, it shows a lack of spacial awareness and size of their vehicle. That light post could have been a mother with a child in a pram.

 

 

Its a great pity that single vehicle accidents eg leaving the road rarely get properly investigated.

 

Again an area where a 'fit and proper' test rather than criminal liability might be very handy.  Mr Slob, we have no idea if your driving was criminally bad or not as we have no evidence but you car ran off the road.  We are taking your licence away as clearly it would not have happened if you were driving properly.

[Nick C]

2 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

Its a great pity that single vehicle accidents eg leaving the road rarely get properly investigated.

 

Again an area where a 'fit and proper' test rather than criminal liability might be very handy.  Mr Slob, we have no idea if your driving was criminally bad or not as we have no evidence but you car ran off the road.  We are taking your licence away as clearly it would not have happened if you were driving properly.

I know it goes against your anti-driver mentality, but there are in fact plenty of things that can cause an accident that aren't the fault of the driver... For example, one single-vehicle accident near here a few years ago, in which the driver tragically lost her life after a deer ran out in front of her, on a dual carriageway. She was minding her own business, driving below the speed limit on a clear dry road - what could be more 'driving properly' than that?

[Budgie]

Another one from across the pond:

 

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by Budgie

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, Budgie said:

Another one from across the pond:

 

 

Did I understand correctly that the level crossing was operating normally after the collision, then later another vehicle broke off a barrier, after which 2 vehicles went through the 'missing' barrier?

[Hobby]

Yep, ignoring the flashing red lights I expect... At least it's one less pick up truck on the road... 😈

[martin_wynne]

RAIB report today:

 

 https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-04-slash-2023-near-miss-at-farnborough-north-footpath-level-crossing

 

Andrew Hall, Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents said:

 

"This incident was particularly serious because it involved large numbers of school and college students crossing the railway on a footpath crossing, ahead of a train travelling at speed. A serious accident was probably avoided due to the quick thinking of the crossing attendant who, on realising the danger, ran to intervene directly by closing a crossing gate that the students were holding open for each other.

 

Behind the incident was an issue of the type RAIB has seen before. Historically the railway knew of the risks at this crossing and ongoing efforts were being made to replace it with a footbridge. This was proving time consuming and difficult, as is sometimes the case when planning decisions are involved. In the meantime, additional warning lights were installed, and a crossing attendant was provided to remotely control electromagnetic locks on the gates, thereby reducing risk. However, a known residual risk was that the crossing’s users might not respond correctly when the audible alarm and warning lights were activated by an approaching train. In this case people held open the gates for each other as the train approached, meaning the attempted application of the gate locks by the attendant had no effect.

 

If a known level of residual risk is allowed to persist for a long time, the chances of it manifesting itself as an accident or serious incident will inevitably rise. This is what happened at Farnborough North and is why the incident holds a powerful lesson."

 

[corneliuslundie]

But what is the solution if it is not possible to provide a footbridge? An on-site level crossing keeper - actually at the gate? Just close the crossing? It is evident that there is a need for students in large numbers to cross the line here. Perhaps a bus to take them to and from the college? I really don't know.

Easy - move the college!

Jonathan

[martin_wynne]

5 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

But what is the solution if it is not possible to provide a footbridge? An on-site level crossing keeper - actually at the gate? Just close the crossing? It is evident that there is a need for students in large numbers to cross the line here. Perhaps a bus to take them to and from the college? I really don't know.

Easy - move the college!

Jonathan

 

It doesn't say it's not possible to provide a footbridge -- just tied up in planning red tape. That would vanish overnight if a kid got killed.

 

A short-term measure might be a motor-operated gate a few seconds after the alarm starts. If it closes slowly it is unlikely to injure anyone badly, and the crossing keeper could stop it if they saw such a thing likely to happen.

 

An operational possibility might be to swap school trains to the opposite platform if the signalling allows it.

 

Frightening the kids would help -- I doubt many of them held the gate open for others while the alarm was sounding on the next morning. It would have been all round the college by lunchtime.

 

Martin.

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Frightening the kids would help -- I doubt many of them held the gate open for others while the alarm was sounding on the next morning. It would have been all round the college by lunchtime.

 

It's evident from the report that there was subsequently a vigorous programme of user education. Equally apparent was the need for the crossing attendant to be better trained to take a proactive role in user management and to have better information.

[phil-b259]

20 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

It doesn't say it's not possible to provide a footbridge -- just tied up in planning red tape.

 

 

The problem at Farnborough North is NR want to build a bridge with ramps as the method of providing for users with restricted mobility. Local residents however are implacably opposed and want lifts despite the fact that:-

 

(1) North Camp station is unstaffed so if anyone gets stuck in the lifts obtaining help may take longer

(2) Lifts need serving an maintenance, plus they can break down - something which is not true of a physical ramp.

 

This is not the only case where safety is being compromised due to local residents NIMBYism - There is a foot crossing a Wareham station which similarly needs a crossing attendant because locals are opposed to adding ramps to the existing footbridge because they think it will 'spoil' the stations appearance.

 

In my book the railways should be entitled to say 'sod you' to locals - if there is a formal near miss properly investigated by the likes of the RAIB and they recommend the crossing should be removed then it should be 'action this day' and stuff planning rules.

 

20 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

An operational possibility might be to swap school trains to the opposite platform if the signalling allows it.

 

 

Not possible - north Camp is simply a twin platformed unstaffed station on a double track line with no crossovers and basic signalling.

 

Moreover the 'school train' is simply an ordinary Reading - Gatwick / Redhill service which happens to be used by schoolchildren.

Edited April 24, 2023 by phil-b259

[ianathompson]

 

One of the boxes that I signed for had a notorious foot crossing where near misses were commonplace.

This was "controlled" by red/green lights.

 

We used to have an ecs scheduled to cross it in the evening rush hour immediately as a down commuter train arrived.

Despite the red light people would walk onto the crossing behind the arriving train.

One or two got a nasty shock as the ecs barrelled past at 70mph.

I deliberately stayed away from the door and refused to warn these people.

Any verbal communication would have been deliberately misconstrued as, "The signalman said it was okay."

 

The railway suggested providing a footbridge and removing the foot crossing at the end of the platforms.

The local disabiled community complained that this disadvantaged them.

The railway left the dangerous foot crossing in place until some inattentive teenaged girl nearly got run over.

 

Now there is no foot crossing and no footbridge.

Passengers cross via the nearby level crossing totally under the control of the signalman.

 

Basically Network Rail was trying to eliminate crossings as much as possible, before I retired a few years ago.

The example quoted at Farnborough  would give them a cast iron case, I would have thought, to close the crossing for mis-use.

Lock the gates and make the college kids walk to the nearest bridge.

If they complain that this is too far/inconvenient point out that they are still alive and that they themselves caused the problem.

 

Ian T

[woodenhead]

If this is a problem of children holding the crossing open after exiting the train then the short term answer may simply be that the train is held whilst the platform is emptied.  Similarly an approaching train may have to be held at a preceding signal to await the crossing being clear of targets and the gates locked.  A few delays would quickly sort out the minds of people who don't want to see a footbridge when they realise the real world implications of blocking planning because they don't think safety trumps things looking like they always did.

 

Its not as if there are hordes of children exiting trains all day every day - it will be M-F at quite selected times and outside of that no issue.

 

The ideal solution is of course a footbridge, a bit of compulsory purchasing if land ownership is the main issue as outlined in the report, it's not a historic train building or an area of outstanding beauty to stop a decent footbridge being built.  There is even a big space at the other end of the station for a nice footbridge and an access path to the school as well to keep the children off the road too.

[corneliuslundie]

Perhaps it needs some suitable headlines in the local paper to shame the opponents of a bridge, whether it is locals or the council. And to get the local politicians on the case (though that may not help if they too are nimbys).

"It's evident from the report that there was subsequently a vigorous programme of user education."

That of course will need to be repeat regularly as students come and go through the years.

Jonathan

Edited April 24, 2023 by corneliuslundie

[martin_wynne]

52 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Not possible - north Camp is simply a twin platformed unstaffed station on a double track line with no crossovers and basic signalling.

 

Crossovers and signalling can be installed. It costs money, but so does a footbridge, which might not then be needed. It also doesn't require any planning permission or have any Nimby issues. We are talking about saving young lives.

 

Martin.

Edited April 24, 2023 by martin_wynne

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

A short-term measure might be a motor-operated gate a few seconds after the alarm starts. If it closes slowly it is unlikely to injure anyone badly, and the crossing keeper could stop it if they saw such a thing likely to happen.

 

In the circumstances described, that would probably trap people between the two gates, and somebody who could see the train approaching would be on the track.

 

On automatic level crossings there is a "minimum opening time" of about 10 seconds before a second train can strike in.  If there's a whole trainload waiting to leave a platform after a train has just arrived, I suspect such an arrangement would need a longer period.

 

However with the arrangement currently installed, I would suggest that once the lights have turned red again, anybody starting to cross is plain stupid and should be treated as having done so at his own risk.  More difficult in the case of schoolchildren however; if they are old enough to travel unaccompanied, they should have sufficient awareness of such risk; no doubt they are trusted to cross a highway on their own.  I would suggest the school should already have been providing appropriate education if there are a lot of chidren at risk here - and if it were a road crossing, and the local authority would have been expected to provide a lollipop lady (or whatever the politically correct term now is).

 

48 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

In my book the railways should be entitled to say 'sod you' to locals

 

Perhaps, but I trust they would convey the message slightly more diplomatically.

[33C]

A particular station I pass through has a pedestrian level crossing, a footbridge, an underpass and a road bridge, all within 50 yards of each other. Which one is a) most used, b) most abused? Lazy, stupid people + shortest/easiest way = death. This is the human condition and you can advise/ legislate as much as you like. You cannot stop it happening, as recently happened further down our line. 

[phil-b259]

9 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Crossovers and signalling can be installed. It costs money, but so does a footbridge, which might not then be needed. We are talking about saving young lives.

 

Martin.

 

Indeed we are - but signalling alterations don't come cheap (nor are they quick to do these days anyway). Things like points also introduce extra failure opportunities (hence why signalling provides what operations need - not cover every single possible permutation a track layout may facilitate.

 

A simple footbridge by contrast is relatively quick to design, manufacture and install (thus 'saving lives' sooner) plus is maintenance free and not going to delay train services by failing - the only thing that holds that back is planning rules and while there obviously does need to be an element of control in what NR does having locals being able to block things on aesthetic grounds is wrong.

 

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Perhaps, but I trust they would convey the message slightly more diplomatically.

 

Naturally

 

However with an official RAIB report in hand NR are quite justified to push on with the footbridge regardless of what locals may think.

[Reorte]

13 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

...having locals being able to block things on aesthetic grounds is wrong.

 

No it isn't. It's an entirely valid, meaningful part of the argument.

 

I have no problem with making an argument that in this case the safety factors completely outweigh the aesthetic ones, I have a huge problem with people who out of hand dismiss them (or anything else that gets in the way of what they want). The problem with aesthetics is, of course, that they're subjective. But the aesthetics of your surroundings, which can accumulate from every detail, including lots of things that individually don't matter much, can have a huge impact on quality of life. It is a valid concern, even when you can make a very solid case others are more important.

 

Damaging the aesthetics can hurt people. The general attitude to it these days and the results of that attitude are a significant contribution towards my poor state of mental health and depression, so I've not a lot of patience with dismissal of them.  Losing a child would hurt even more, so you can certainly make a good case based on that and say that's more important - that's reasonable. But "I'm right, anyone who disagrees should be sneered at and dismissed" is not.

 

Arguing the better case, more convincing reasons does not make the others wrong. It just means that you've made a better case (generic "you" there, not directed at you personally). Their points do not become wrong or invalid. You have not managed to prove that they should not hold the values they do. You've just managed (quite reasonably) to persuade enough people that overall people are better off with what you're after.

 

And no, this does not mean I'm taking sides against a footbridge, although someone inevitably pops up when I make such posts who appears to believe that I am.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Reorte

[phil-b259]

11 minutes ago, Reorte said:

No it isn't. It's an entirely valid, meaningful part of the argument.

 

I have no problem with making an argument that in this case the safety factors completely outweigh the aesthetic ones, I have a huge problem with people who out of hand dismiss them (or anything else that gets in the way of what they want). The problem with aesthetics is, of course, that they're subjective. But the aesthetics of your surroundings, which can accumulate from every detail, including lots of things that individually don't matter much, can have a huge impact on quality of life. It is a valid concern, even when you can make a very solid case others are more important.

 

Damaging the aesthetics can hurt people. The general attitude to it these days and the results of that attitude are a significant contribution towards my poor state of mental health and depression, so I've not a lot of patience with dismissal of them.  Losing a child would hurt even more, so you can certainly make a good case based on that and say that's more important - that's reasonable. But "I'm right, anyone who disagrees should be sneered at and dismissed" is not.

 

And no, this does not mean I'm taking sides against a footbridge, although someone inevitably pops up when I make such posts who appears to believe that I am.

 

 

 

Perhaps I could have phrased things differently - but as you acknowledge in some cases we are talking about what Martin_ Wynne refereed to as "We are talking about saving young lives" and in that sort of instance what something looks is very much a secondary consideration.

 

Consequently where a level / foot crossing is shown to be having serious issues with misuse - in this case to the extent that the RAIB had to investigate so hardly a trivial or week safety case, then the installation of a footbridge should not be delayed by local residents objections (unless they represent things like loss of daylight) with NR having permission to install said bridge under 'permitted development' rights.

 

None of this goes against your comment that:-

 

"Losing a child would hurt even more, so you can certainly make a good case based on that and say that's more important - that's reasonable"

Edited April 24, 2023 by phil-b259

[Wickham Green too]

50 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

... with NR having permission to install said bridge under 'permitted development' rights. ...

Would 'permitted development' rights extend - literally - beyond the railway fence where ramped access would almost inevitably have to be ?

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Would 'permitted development' rights extend - literally - beyond the railway fence where ramped access would almost inevitably have to be ?

 

Under current arrangements I don't think they do  - hence planning permission is needed.