Level crossing stupidity...

[PatB]

Insisting that the motorist must have been going too fast (possibly true) because they hit a large and unlit obstruction which they had no reasonable cause to expect to be there smacks very strongly of attempting to minimise fault on the part of the railway, even in the face of fairly clear transgression. Something which rears its head on this forum quite regularly.

 

As I mentioned, the courts have historically taken a dim view (ahem) of those placing unlit things on the road regardless of the contributory actions of those who drove into them. This is not some new leniency towards careless driving either. I remember seeing cases 30+ years ago, and have been reliably informed of others going back to the 1940s, if not beyond.

 

As for the wording of the report, the Board of Trade inspectors of yore could turn a colourful phrase at times so I'd hardly see that as anything new either.

[martin_wynne]

Although a fallen tree, dead cow, abandoned HGV, combine harvester, landed UFO, or whatever might appear unannounced anywhere, I would suggest that a railway level crossing is an unlikely place to find one. Seeing such a crossing with the barriers up and no lights showing it would be a reasonable assumption to make that this bit of road at least is clear of obstructions.

 

Martin.

[Foulounoux]

Having come across deer in the middle of an unlit road at 40-50mph and with full beam I can testify to the time it takes to react

 

It was on a stretch of road I used to regularly drive at 60mph (speed limit) without a care. In fact the only reason I was driving at the lower speed was because it was 2am in the morning and a nice policeman had stopped me in Hungerford thinking I had very recently left the confines of the local hostelry.

 

So I would probably have been in the same situation as the lady. Driving under the limit Seem something ahead and started to react then realised oh............ Expletive of choice

[JDW]

As much as I'm all for drivers being aware of their surroundings and driving in a manner that allows them to react, I have a good degree of sympathy with the car driver here.  A freight wagon is often dirty, and generally unreflective, so would be hard to see in the dark with no other light sources.  Especially when the barriers are raised - and I assume they would have been clearly visible as they are usually reflective, so it is easy to be led to think the road ahead is clear. 

 

Then, of course, there's the "no, it can't be..." moment, where you don't actually believe there's a train sitting there, as it's not what you're expecting. 

 

I also suspect that it would surprise a lot of people how close you have to be to a non-reflective object at night to see it on normal (dipped) headlights, I often wonder about how much of my stopping distance I can actually see at high speeds, and even more so for older cars with poor headlights.  

[Colin_McLeod]

Who would be to blame if a train crashed into this at night?

 

[Glorious NSE]

I also suspect that it would surprise a lot of people how close you have to be to a non-reflective object at night to see it on normal (dipped) headlights, I often wonder about how much of my stopping distance I can actually see at high speeds, and even more so for older cars with poor headlights.  

At 60-65mph* on dipped lights I can attest from experience you're likely to have already hit the object before you react to it. 

 

(*Unlit motorway at night, lane 1, came across somebody using the hard shoulder white line as a balancing beam - i'd gone right past him - luckily for us both! - before my reactions kicked in.) 

[Ian Smeeton]

Where was the flashing red tail light on the train?

 

Regards

 

Ian

[peanuts]

Who would be to blame if a train crashed into this at night?

"bloody leaves on the line just a pathetic excuse i tell you "

FB_IMG_1532019499979.jpg

Edited July 20, 2018 by peanuts

[Titan]

Where was the flashing red tail light on the train?

 

Regards

 

Ian

 

On the rear lamp bracket and functioning correctly. Due to the railway crossing the road at an angle, and that the red tail lamp unsurprisingly does not point sideways, it was not visible.

[Jonboy]

Came down a unlit slip road road to enter an empty m40 at around 11:30pm one night (early May) to find an unlit vehical parked at the bottom...it shocked me how late it became visible.

[beast66606]

Came down a unlit slip road road to enter an empty m40 at around 11:30pm one night (early May) to find an unlit vehical parked at the bottom...it shocked me how late it became visible.

 

However the Highway code does not state "Approach and cross it with care." for a slip road, it's reasonable to assume a slip road is clear, it's not reasonable to assume that a level crossing will stay clear and the lights won't start their sequence when you approach one, and the approach speed should reflect the need to stop if the amber light illuminates.

 

Saying that leaving a tail hanging over the crossing with the barriers up and lights out is very bad design - to say the least.

[beast66606]

Put a large, unlit obstruction in the road at night and see how far "they were going too fast" absolves you of liability in the eyes of the court.if someone hits it. I can think of several cases where those responsible for, eg unlit skips have been found liable when someone has clouted them.

 

The railway is not always the innocent party.

 

The difference in this case is if you put a skip on the road there is a legal requirement for it to be lit, there is no such requirement for a train, a cow, a fallen tree.

[Talltim]

One thing not mentioned so far it that the buffer/frame of the wagon hit was above the ground, with the bit of the wagoon that was touching the ground off the level crossing. My gut feeling says that this would make it be less likely to be seen than something that was touching the ground in the road. Some similarities with the Russian truck hitting the projecting boom in the video earlier in the thread

[PhilJ W]

The bottom line is that the barriers should not be raised until the entire train is well clear of the crossing.

[caradoc]

The bottom line is that the barriers should not be raised until the entire train is well clear of the crossing.

 

Indeed, but that was how the crossing was designed to operate when installed by British Rail. It would have been interesting if data was available on how many such LCs still exist on the national rail network, and the cost of upgrading them all to current standards to eliminate such incidents.

[St. Simon]

The bottom line is that the barriers should not be raised until the entire train is well clear of the crossing.

 

 

Indeed, but that was how the crossing was designed to operate when installed by British Rail. It would have been interesting if data was available on how many such LCs still exist on the national rail network, and the cost of upgrading them all to current standards to eliminate such incidents.

 

It would be reviewed under 'reasonably opportunity'. If it would cost millions and millions to do to eliminate this sort of incident, which actually is fairly rare (compared with the amount of crossing jumpers etc.), then it might be delayed until the crossing is up for a full renewal or replacement. If it only cost a few hundred, then it would be worthwhile.

 

Of course, the above is personal opinion only.

 

Simon

[phil-b259]

Indeed, but that was how the crossing was designed to operate when installed by British Rail. It would have been interesting if data was available on how many such LCs still exist on the national rail network, and the cost of upgrading them all to current standards to eliminate such incidents.

 

Most (if not all) of the Automatic Half Barrier crossings in Sussex suffer from this design flaw, which came about because back in the 1970s / 1980s the design team at British Rail (which far too many people assume can do no wrong compared to todays setup) assumed nobody would be so stupid as to drive into the side of a train - although this rather ignores the issue of freight trains / locos not exactly being very visible at night or in poor weather (passenger trains will usually have the carriage lighting showing through the windows making them a bit more obvious).

 

Across the country it is probably quite common - just as not having the level crossing equipment fully interlocked with the signals did not only occur at Moreton-on -Lug and was actually quite a common way of doing things at one time.

 

While more recent level crossing circuitry does indeed recognise the risks, as with many other things on the railway, a long design life, the number of crossings, budgetary considerations, availability of designers, etc means that the wholesale rewiring of level crossing circuitry regardless of age has not been seen as a wise use of resources. Its worth remembering that even TPWS (which was hurriedly installed after Ladbroke Grove crash) took around 2-3 years before all high risk signals could be fitted simply due to the design / install resources available.

 

Our AHBs use treadles (a mechanical switch operated by train  wheels) to control the sequence - and once the exit treadle (the final one the train traverses located immediately 'downstream' as it were from the crossing) has returned to the normal position after being pressed the barriers WILL automatically raise. Track circuits play no part in the crossing operation - indeed most would need altering anyway as they boundary between them is usually sited on the immediate entrance side (as a train driver sees it) of the crossing) and continues for a good mile or so in the exit direction (in other words the crossing simply might as well not exist as far as the design of the track circuit boundaries goes).

 

Treadles are fitted with internal damping so it takes around 7 seconds for the arm to return to normal after being pressed - and although this will not cause a problem with trains passing at line speed, should anything be travelling extremely slowly or stop straddling he crossing then its pretty much a certainly the barriers will raise and the red road lights go out.

 

There are discussions going on at a senior level about what to do as regards these crossings - but with the number that need modification there is no quick fix due to the current track circuit layouts.

Edited July 20, 2018 by phil-b259

[PatB]

The difference in this case is if you put a skip on the road there is a legal requirement for it to be lit, there is no such requirement for a train, a cow, a fallen tree.

True, but if, by negligence, you cause a cow or fallen tree to be on a road where it might not be expected to be, I suspect you'll still find yourself with some serious explaining to do.

 

If it's legal, common practice, or considered by the rail industry to be acceptable for level crossing design to allow a train to stand foul of the crossing without any warning devices present operating, it really shouldn't be and I'd be pushed to think of any justification why it should.

[phil-b259]

The bottom line is that the barriers should not be raised until the entire train is well clear of the crossing.

 

'Should' is not perhaps the best word to use as it can equally be said that trains 'Should' not come to a halt in a place where it might foul a level crossing in the first place.

 

Indeed this danger from planned train operation is one of the factors as to why AHBs were not used in certain locations or special controls e.g. 'stopping / non stopping modes' were provided where required. The problem arises when 'unplanned' situations occur (such as an emergency brake application, loss of air due to mechanical defect etc) is thrown into the mix.

 

The way the current design parameters for new / replaced level crossing circuitry uses the phrase 'the barriers must not raise until no part of the train is on the crossing. Unfortunately such a requirement was not in force 4 / 5 decades ago when large numbers of crossings were automated....

Edited July 20, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

True, but if, by negligence, you cause a cow or fallen tree to be on a road where it might not be expected to be, I suspect you'll still find yourself with some serious explaining to do.

 

If it's legal, common practice, or considered by the rail industry to be acceptable for level crossing design to allow a train to stand foul of the crossing without any warning devices present operating, it really shouldn't be and I'd be pushed to think of any justification why it should.

 

You need a time machine to answer that question.

 

To be clear on this point - It is not acceptable to todays (or to be correct any designer of level crossing circuitry for the past 2 decades) to include such a flaw in anything being installed now as the relevant design standards make clear.

 

As has been explained it wasn't always so.

 

However, a more sensible set question is why has this unsafe situation been allowed to continue at older installations and whether the risk of continuing to not alter them to comply with the latest specifications was the correct thing to do (accepting that with a finite pot of money then it may be better spent on other things that present a grater chance of death / serious injury to the public)

[martin_wynne]

There are discussions going on at a senior level about what to do as regards these crossings - but with the number that need modification there is no quick fix due to the current track circuit layouts.

 

Street lighting might be the cheapest option? With a bit of luck and inspired reading of the regulations you might even get the local Highways Authority to pay for it.

 

Martin.

[phil-b259]

Street lighting might be the cheapest option? With a bit of luck and inspired reading of the regulations you might even get the local Highways Authority to pay for it.

 

Martin.

 

Certainly a possible temporary mitigating measure that avoids the need to tie up signalling design resources - which through the use if LEDs could also be fitted with a battery back up to last as long as the crossing equipment does*.

 

* All AHBs feature a battery back up to maintain crossing systems for 7 - 8 hours (varies with amount of train traffic naturally)

Edited July 20, 2018 by phil-b259

[St. Simon]

There are discussions going on at a senior level about what to do as regards these crossings - but with the number that need modification there is no quick fix due to the current track circuit layouts.

 

Hi,

 

There is the new AHB-OD option, although I believe that the OD bit only applies when the crossing is initiated rather than to prove a train has cleared, but in theory it could be applied to that purpose as well

 

If it's legal, common practice, or considered by the rail industry to be acceptable for level crossing design to allow a train to stand foul of the crossing without any warning devices present operating, it really shouldn't be and I'd be pushed to think of any justification why it should.

 

We must remember, and the point was made in the report, that the design of the crossing was compliant with the standards at the time it was installed and commissioned. It is since then that the standards have changed to add the extra circuitry mentioned. It is not always possible or practicable to change everything to new standards immediately.

 

When changes are made to standards, then assessments are carried out to establish whether it is reasonable practicable to update stuff to the new standards, taking into account risk, cost, benefit and time available. As I've said, this assessment will be carried out to see what is reasonably practicable to do.

 

EDIT: The report also mentioned that the crossing is due for replacement with an MCB-OD in 2021, so they've done the assessment and the design 'flaw' was going to be removed. Okay, a bit late now, but it shows that such things are looked at.

 

Simon

Edited July 20, 2018 by St. Simon

[Geoff Endacott]

Street lighting might be the cheapest option? With a bit of luck and inspired reading of the regulations you might even get the local Highways Authority to pay for it.

 

Closing the road would be the cheapest option.

 

Geoff Endacott

[talisman56]

If you drive into the back of the car in front but it didn't have any lights on, who (legally) is to blame? 

 

I am finding this an increasing problem with newer cars with LED 'all-day' lights on the front. After dark, driver gets in, can see where he is going because the lights that illuminate all the time are so bright, and therefore omits to put the proper head- and tail-lights on.