Level crossing stupidity...

[stewartingram]

If you ever watch the VirtualRailcam sites at night (easy due to the time difference), it is noticeable that US wagons have reflective strips on the sides. Perhaps where EWS got the idea of putting them on their new 66s?

 

Stewart

[caradoc]

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.

 

Agree, however like so many rail accidents this one occurred due to an unfortunate combination of circumstances; A train stopped where it would never do so normally, it was a freight train and therefore unlit, it was a minor road out in the country without street lighting, the national speed limit applied, and at the time of year it was dark during the motorist's journey.

 

Another question would be how often such accidents actually occur; IIRC the only other one mentioned in the RAIB report was at Lairg, therefore suggesting that in fact they are extremely rare, and that the risk to road users is tiny, certainly when compared to the daily toll of death and injury on the roads which seems to be accepted as just one of those things. This is not so say that Network Rail should not (which also applies to British Rail and Railtrack in the past) do everything possible to minimise the dangers of level crossings, but the cost/benefit ratio has to be considered.

[Titan]

Agree, however like so many rail accidents this one occurred due to an unfortunate combination of circumstances; A train stopped where it would never do so normally, it was a freight train and therefore unlit, it was a minor road out in the country without street lighting, the national speed limit applied, and at the time of year it was dark during the motorist's journey.

 

Another question would be how often such accidents actually occur; IIRC the only other one mentioned in the RAIB report was at Lairg, therefore suggesting that in fact they are extremely rare, and that the risk to road users is tiny, certainly when compared to the daily toll of death and injury on the roads which seems to be accepted as just one of those things. This is not so say that Network Rail should not (which also applies to British Rail and Railtrack in the past) do everything possible to minimise the dangers of level crossings, but the cost/benefit ratio has to be considered.

 

Not only that, but the train was only stationary for 1m 53s whilst the driver reset his vigilance device and blew off the brake. 

[Vistisen]

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.

 

Here is an interesting PDF about the studies that lead to this directive in 2011 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/projects_sources/drl_final_report_oct_2004.pdf The reason for not having rear lights on all the time was to offset the increased pollution that would cause. But this is now changed all cars that are certified after November 2016 must have a sensor that automatically turns the rear lights on when it gets dark. This does not of course help if it is daytime but raining hard og foggy. But it is better than nothing. Of course what Britain will do after Brexit is up to you!

[The Stationmaster]

Here is an interesting PDF about the studies that lead to this directive in 2011 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/projects_sources/drl_final_report_oct_2004.pdf The reason for not having rear lights on all the time was to offset the increased pollution that would cause. But this is now changed all cars that are certified after November 2016 must have a sensor that automatically turns the rear lights on when it gets dark. This does not of course help if it is daytime but raining hard og foggy. But it is better than nothing. Of course what Britain will do after Brexit is up to you!

 

My 2009 registered car has a sensor (which I can turn off through a sub-menu) which will turn on the headlights and rear lights if it detects a particularly low level of ambient light.  That low level can be caused by darkness, weather, and some overbridges, as well as the shadow from buildings.

Here we go again:

 

"Simon French, Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents said:

 

No motorist wants to encounter an obstruction on an unlit road after dark. Large animals or fallen trees are to some extent a normal part of rural life. But to find part of a freight train, stationary and with no visible lights, looming out of the darkness on a level crossing in the early hours of the morning, must have been a truly terrifying experience. There was no warning. The level crossing barriers had risen, and the road lights had stopped flashing, over a minute before the car approached the crossing. The driver of the car that hit this train was lucky to escape with her life."

 

RAIB report today: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-082018-collision-at-stainforth-road-level-crossing

 

What a peculiar way of referring to an obsolescent design. methinks Mr French hath a poor understanding of the English language (and of his own job).

[mike hughes]

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.

Actually the AHBs down in the Sussex bit were always track circuit or treadle operated. When the Arun Valley was resignslled they’re now axle counter operated with treadles used only as the clearance

Michael

[melmerby]

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

There was a case a few years ago when some plods (I'll call them that due to the circumstances) ran into the back of a motorist who had stopped at red traffic lights.

It was daylight in good weather.

Q Who was to blame?

A The motorist who stopped at the red light.

 

Fact.

 

Keith

[PhilJ W]

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.

The HA's haven't any spare cash to pay for filling in potholes let alone illuminating level crossings. If your looking for a cheap(er) solution without major alterations. What about axle counters either side of the crossing coupled to the barriers so that the barriers dont open until the same number of axles have been counted in and out?

[Glorious NSE]

If you ever watch the VirtualRailcam sites at night (easy due to the time difference), it is noticeable that US wagons have reflective strips on the sides. Perhaps where EWS got the idea of putting them on their new 66s?

 

Oddly/relevantly enough, they were mandated after a fatal collision where a driver pancaked his car under a tank wagon which had come to rest straddling a crossing without any active protection.

 

The investigation proved that the driver would have clearly seen an empty road ahead beyond the crossing, and the tank wagon body itself was invisible against the sky.

 

The response was mandating the reflective strips on all stock.

 

Many companies had already standardised on a reflective strip on loco's (including Wisconsin Central, which is where the 66s get it from) but it was much, much less common for them to be seen on freight cars until very recently, particularly on private owner cars as the vast majority of tanks are.

 

Probably a more relevant issue to North America where they have far more crossings, and a decent percentage of them unprotected however.

[phil-b259]

The HA's haven't any spare cash to pay for filling in potholes let alone illuminating level crossings. If your looking for a cheap(er) solution without major alterations. What about axle counters either side of the crossing coupled to the barriers so that the barriers dont open until the same number of axles have been counted in and out?

The problem with this (or any other similar suggestions) is it requires alterations to be made to the exsisting Level Crossing controls.

 

As has been pointed out new Level crossing control circuitry includes protection against the barriers being able to rise when ta train is still on the Crossing.

 

ANY alterations to signalling circuits presents a high level of risk and can only done b suitably qualified designers and must go through an extensive review process. NOBODY is permitted to make alterations to current designs without going through due process.

 

Given the chronic shortage of signalling design / testing expertise that exsists in the country (and amongst NRs key suppliers of generally) designing and fitting any modifications - regardless of how minor they are will take time.

 

As such if you are going to the trouble of instigating alterations to current signalling, then you might as well make a proper job of it (which can of course employ axle counters as an overlay)

[Coryton]

Level crossings are, so far as I know, one of the most dangerous parts of the rail network.

 

But then again risk on the rail network is (and is required to be) far lower than on the road network.

 

If the risk at a level crossing is at a level which would be accepted elsewhere on the road network, maybe that should be good enough?

 

 

 

[PatB]

Level crossings are, so far as I know, one of the most dangerous parts of the rail network.

 

But then again risk on the rail network is (and is required to be) far lower than on the road network.

 

If the risk at a level crossing is at a level which would be accepted elsewhere on the road network, maybe that should be good enough?

Perhaps so. However I doubt if obstructing the road with big, unlit things, in a manner reasonably predictable by those responsible for said big unlit things is widely regarded as acceptable. Hence the longstanding requirement for lighting things like skips and roadworks, and parking lights on vehicles (although I'm not sure how that stands these days).

 

Granted, the obstruction was temporary. However, is there no requirement in the UK for procedures for traffic control/protection when a road is to be obstructed, even briefly? I know that here in Oz, if you knew you there was a possibility to obstruct a road in the manner in this case, and an incident occurred, the person in the grey wig would be inquiring very minutely as to what risk mitigation strategies were in place. "It was only the occasional 2 minutes" or "It only happened because the other guy was driving too fast" would wash about as well as an anoraksic at an exhibition. This is speaking generally about doing things which can involve partially or completely obstructing roads, not just about railway crossings.

[kevinlms]

Oddly/relevantly enough, they were mandated after a fatal collision where a driver pancaked his car under a tank wagon which had come to rest straddling a crossing without any active protection.

 

The investigation proved that the driver would have clearly seen an empty road ahead beyond the crossing, and the tank wagon body itself was invisible against the sky.

 

The response was mandating the reflective strips on all stock.

 

Many companies had already standardised on a reflective strip on loco's (including Wisconsin Central, which is where the 66s get it from) but it was much, much less common for them to be seen on freight cars until very recently, particularly on private owner cars as the vast majority of tanks are.

 

Probably a more relevant issue to North America where they have far more crossings, and a decent percentage of them unprotected however.

How effective is the reflective strip, considering in some parts of the US, many freight cars are heavily graffitied.

 

Perhaps the railway companies should insist that the graffiti is done with yellow & green reflective paint?

[royaloak]

Where was the flashing red tail light on the train?

 

Regards

 

Ian

At the back.

[ejstubbs]

There was a case a few years ago when some plods (I'll call them that due to the circumstances) ran into the back of a motorist who had stopped at red traffic lights.

It was daylight in good weather.

Q Who was to blame?

A The motorist who stopped at the red light.

 

Fact.

 

Keith

 

There ought to be a court record of this case, any idea how I might be able to search for it?

Edited July 21, 2018 by ejstubbs

[ejstubbs]

Agree, however like so many rail accidents this one occurred due to an unfortunate combination of circumstances; A train stopped where it would never do so normally

 

This is something that the RAIB report seems to let pass rather too easily IMO.  It goes on at some length about how the DSD works, states that the foot pedal was found to be working normally, and speculates about why the driver's attempt to reset the DSD after the audible alarm had sounded was ineffective.  But it doesn't seem to reach an conclusions about it, or make any recommendations about further action.  The fact nonetheless remains that if the train had not stopped in an unexpected place then the incident would never have occurred - it's a clear contributary factor.

 

Granted trains do sometimes have to stop in unexpected places for other reasons eg trespassers, straying livestock or other blockages, some of which may not be under the railway's control.  But where the reason for a train having to stop is at least partly within the control of the railway - such as inadequate lineside fencing - then I'd expect that to be called out.

 

How common is it for trains to come to a stop because the vigilance systems have activated the brake?  I find it difficult to believe that it's a particularly frequent occurrence - I'm sure you'd hear about it if passenger services were regularly screeching to a halt for no very good reason.  Do such incidents have to be reported and monitored?

Edited July 21, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Rugd1022]

There have been instances of Drivers not hearing the vigilance device going off in long tunnels while under power with a heavy train due to the sheer noise involved - it happened to me in Kilsby Tunnel several years ago with a 66 in notch eight with over two thousand tons in tow, I came to a grinding halt with the loco cab directly under the large southern air vent turret. Surprisingly I was able to get in touch with Rugby PSB, report it, reset and carry on to Wembley.

[Fat Controller]

How effective is the reflective strip, considering in some parts of the US, many freight cars are heavily graffitied.

 

Perhaps the railway companies should insist that the graffiti is done with yellow & green reflective paint?

Was this not the reason why some UK oil companies painted the solebars of their Class A tanks bright red? Also, tanks conveying certain chemicals used to have a bright red stripe around the circumference, superseded by a broad orangey- yellow horizontal stripe.

[caradoc]

Perhaps so. However I doubt if obstructing the road with big, unlit things, in a manner reasonably predictable by those responsible for said big unlit things is widely regarded as acceptable. Hence the longstanding requirement for lighting things like skips and roadworks, and parking lights on vehicles (although I'm not sure how that stands these days).

 

Granted, the obstruction was temporary. However, is there no requirement in the UK for procedures for traffic control/protection when a road is to be obstructed, even briefly? I know that here in Oz, if you knew you there was a possibility to obstruct a road in the manner in this case, and an incident occurred, the person in the grey wig would be inquiring very minutely as to what risk mitigation strategies were in place. "It was only the occasional 2 minutes" or "It only happened because the other guy was driving too fast" would wash about as well as an anoraksic at an exhibition. This is speaking generally about doing things which can involve partially or completely obstructing roads, not just about railway crossings.

 

On the other hand, would it wash if the railway said we have 200 level crossings which require upgrading to prevent this kind of extremely rare accident ever happening again, no-one can have any idea where the next incident will occur so we would have to upgrade every single one, and it costs £2 million per crossing ? (numbers quoted are purely for the sake of argument !)

[stewartingram]

How effective is the reflective strip, considering in some parts of the US, many freight cars are heavily graffitied.

 

Perhaps the railway companies should insist that the graffiti is done with yellow & green reflective paint?

Try looking at Virtual Railcam - Horseshoe Curve is a good start.

 

Stewart

[Glorious NSE]

How effective is the reflective strip, considering in some parts of the US, many freight cars are heavily graffitied.

 

Perhaps the railway companies should insist that the graffiti is done with yellow & green reflective paint?

 

From what I can see, very effective.

 

The impact of graffiti is less than you'd imagine (most doesn't cover the entire car side) - and if it did get painted over then replacing the reflective strips would need to happen as would replacing other car side data.

 

These were shot during a period when most, but not yet all, freightcars had the yellow/white reflective strips added.

 

Two trains on this one - it does make the point that decent crossing hardware makes a much bigger impact than anything you put on the side of a train though!

I think there may be a couple of boxcars in there where graffiti does make a difference, largely it doesn't though.

 

This is a handy view without the brightly lit crossing equipment - although keep in mind it also shows mainly light grey covered hoppers not black tank cars. (The DPU loco on the end is a nice example of railroads getting creative with the reflective tape!)

 

Ethanol unit train back with black tank cars, suspect from the angle of the light the railfans were using a spotlight here not just car headlights though. Easy to compare visibility of the few cars without the reflective stripes compared to the majority with, and also check out how much of a view you get of what's behind the train.

 

Again - a much bigger issue for the US than for the UK I'd suspect. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by Glorious NSE

[martin_wynne]

so we would have to upgrade every single one, and it costs £2 million per crossing ? (numbers quoted are purely for the sake of argument !)

 

At £2 million per crossing it would be much cheaper to employ a crossing-keeper.

[jamie92208]

I believe that there is a value per life saved that is used in these assessments though IIRC it is at least double the value of a life saved in road accidents for assessing road schemes. From memory, which may well be faulty it is a £7 million for rail and £3.5million for road.

 

Jamie

[Coryton]

I believe that there is a value per life saved that is used in these assessments though IIRC it is at least double the value of a life saved in road accidents for assessing road schemes. From memory, which may well be faulty it is a £7 million for rail and £3.5million for road.

 

Jamie

 

A bit difficult to quantify in this case, I would have thought.

 

How would you calculate the likelihood of a train coming to a stop in a similar manner at each level crossing?

[The Stationmaster]

At £2 million per crossing it would be much cheaper to employ a crossing-keeper.

 

I wonder.  The most recent basic salary I can find for a Crossing Keeper on NR is £24K in 2017 if you then add in a Sunday turn (seemingly paid at 150% plus night shift allowance one past estimate (2013) reckoned an over improvement on base salary of 10%-20%.  Assuming a line open 24 hours, seven days per week, and using only the 10% figure that gives a total of £79,200 p.a. on wages alone,  I don't know how overheads would currently work out on NR but including pension I would think we'll be looking at a minimum of a further 20%p.a.  So your annual staffing cost is going to be around £95K

 

On top of that you need to add accommodation and communications link plus, possibly some signalling controls all of which needs to be provided and then maintained - so merely an annual cost plus renewals if the crossing is currently manned but a capital cost if the crossing is currently unmanned.

 

The capital cost might be difficult to arrive at as it will vary with location and all sorts of other factors but it is probably reasonable to put it well in excess of £100K and possibly as much as double that.  Now let's look the cost over whole scheme life and we'll be generous and use only 20 years (the BR norm was to use 25 years on things like this) so we have =

 

Staff cost £95,000 p.a. x 20 p.a. =  £1.9 million

Installation cost, conservatively     £100,000

 

Total cost so far = £2 million and that excludes annual maintenance and any renewals arising.  Obviously if the crossing is not manned over 24 hours and/or for seven days per week the annual staffing bill will be considerably reduced and over 20 years even including installation costs it will come out at less than £2 million. But would crossings on lines which are that quiet actually need an attended crossing?  And there is of course a ready made answer anyway - if it were cheaper to employ Crossing Keepers than to automate level crossings why did BR start going in for automation etc to get rid of Crossing Keepers well over 40 years ago?