Level crossing stupidity...

[martin_wynne]

Bad grammar/logic on the signage shown in today's RAIB report:

 

 

As it stands 2. means that the ONLY thing you are allowed to do when the green light shows is to cross. Turning round and going home isn't allowed. And if the green light isn't showing, there are no instructions on what you can or can't do.

 

It should read "Cross ONLY when green light shows".

 

A misplaced 'only' is a common mistake in everyday speech and writing. But one would hope that designers of railway safety systems are better than that and hot on logic. If they can't think clearly and logically about the wording, can they be trusted to do so in the circuit designs and software?

 

Martin.

Edited April 28, 2016 by martin_wynne

[Kenton]

 

But one would hope that designers of railway safety systems are better than that and hot on logic. If they can't think clearly and logically about the wording, can they be trusted to do so in the circuit designs and software?

 

  You presume a level of education and instruction in pure English that no longer is taught or accepted as standard.

 

In this day of instant messaging and text speak, adopted by most of those progressing through the education system and into work, the omission of words, punctuation and understanding of the nuances of meaning is lost.

 

Perhaps in the long gone days where a sign would have been dictated to an accomplished secretary, reviewed and read by many a committee before being issued for release such corrections would have been made. These days they are probably composed on a mobile phone keypad and sent as an afterthought. They were understood by the person preparing the composition as they typed it in but then never read again until you picked it out.

 

The additional fact that it is likely that a fair proportion of those encountering the sign cannot read let alone understand the full meaning simply adds to the futility in even bothering to correct the English.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Kenton

[Talltim]

So, do the RAIB think there should be greater or fewer signs at level crossings?

 

 

There was no sign at the button to warn the driver to recheck the warning light before going over the crossing. The investigation also found that the warning light was not conspicuous among the many signs present at the crossing.

[Reorte]

So, do the RAIB think there should be greater or fewer signs at level crossings?

I doubt that it's simply a question of numbers. Getting the right prominence to the right things is not an unskilled job.

[Colin_McLeod]

Slightly OT and not aimed at Reorte, but why do people use double negatives? Why say "it is not an unskilled job" instead of saying "it is a skilled job" ?

Edited April 28, 2016 by Colin_McLeod

[Penlan]

Slightly OT and not aimed at Reorte, but why do people use double negatives? 

Like  "In the wrong place at the wrong time"......

[martin_wynne]

Like  "In the wrong place at the wrong time"......

 

And while on the subject, on those Swiss cuckoo clocks, why does the man come out when it's raining? Is he stupid or something?

[melmerby]

And while on the subject, on those Swiss cuckoo clocks, why does the man come out when it's raining? Is he stupid or something?

No. He's Swiss.

That says it all!

 

Keith

[Poggy1165]

I suppose, apart from professional railway persons, and to a lesser extent, railway enthusiasts, people simply do not 'get' how long it takes for a train to stop.

 

Then, as has been mentioned, signs are not always written in clear English, and even if they are, a fair percentage of the population will not understand exactly what is meant. Writing in English so clear that literally everyone will understand is actually very difficult, one reason why we have so many logos and pictures these days in place of notices written in English.

 

Finally, an interesting experience is to visit central Manchester, and note how many people seem to think a heavy tram can stop on a sixpence - or how casually they walk straight in front of such a vehicle. For some inexplicable reason, they seem to do this where they would not walk straight in front of a bus. Perhaps some people think rails have magic properties.

[SHMD]

 

Finally, an interesting experience is to visit central Manchester, and note how many people seem to think a heavy tram can stop on a sixpence - or how casually they walk straight in front of such a vehicle. For some inexplicable reason, they seem to do this where they would not walk straight in front of a bus. Perhaps some people think rails have magic properties.

..and I think that this is part of the problem.

People take these experiences of rail mounted vehicles "avoiding" Joe public and then apply them to the real railway.

 

 

Kevin.

[The Stationmaster]

Bad grammar/logic on the signage shown in today's RAIB report:

 

only_cross.jpg

 

As it stands 2. means that the ONLY thing you are allowed to do when the green light shows is to cross. Turning round and going home isn't allowed. And if the green light isn't showing, there are no instructions on what you can or can't do.

 

It should read "Cross ONLY when green light shows".

 

A misplaced 'only' is a common mistake in everyday speech and writing. But one would hope that designers of railway safety systems are better than that and hot on logic. If they can't think clearly and logically about the wording, can they be trusted to do so in the circuit designs and software?

 

Martin.

 

It's done that way on purpose - common format in Rules etc in that you don't start with a word which implies authority or permission to do something.  Thus you would never start with the word 'cross' where that authority is conditional on something else - a green light in this case.  So the critical word which you must not put first is 'cross' because if someone reads that far they will not read any further and off they will go, especially if their reading standard or knowledge of English is poor.

 

It might not make neat English but that isn't the point - the message is that you can only cross when the light is green.  Better wording would be 'DO NOT CROSS unless there is a green light' or something to that effect.  Overall the signage is a total mess with signs in the wrong order, the 'phone in the wrong place and so on - it looks like it was planned by someone who hadn't got a clue what he was doing and if that is the standard layout there is something desperately wrong with it.

[martin_wynne]

the message is that you can only cross when the light is green.

 

No it isn't Mike. That means that you can't do anything else when the light is green. You can't turn round and go back; you can't lean on the fence and eat a Mars bar; the only thing you can do when the green light is showing is cross. And what happens when the green light is not showing isn't stated.

 

I agree that "DO NOT cross unless the green light is showing" would be a lot better.

 

Martin.

[Dagworth]

Best sign I know of https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.8965575,-2.0775182,3a,15y,342.5h,83.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvDi2K7XzYYhvYLdPFE3Kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

 

"WARNING

PRIVATE PROPERTY

You are entering an

authorised parking area.

This applies ALL day

EVERY day

PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY"

 

An authorised parking area? If I can smoke in an authorised smoking area can I park in an authorised parking area?

 

No-one else seems to see the sign as anything but correct

 

Apologies for going off-topic

 

Andi

Edited April 28, 2016 by Dagworth

[Reorte]

Slightly OT and not aimed at Reorte, but why do people use double negatives? Why say "it is not an unskilled job" instead of saying "it is a skilled job" ?

Although both say the same thing they carry slightly different weight and implications. The former suggests that it seems like it should be a simple job but the reality is that it is not, the latter a more straightforward, neutral statement. That was probably my subconcious thinking when I wrote it at any rate.

[Colin_McLeod]

Reorte, yes I can now see the subtle difference. Thanks.

[kevinlms]

And while on the subject, on those Swiss cuckoo clocks, why does the man come out when it's raining? Is he stupid or something?

Because like all Swiss, you can set the clock by them!

[kevinlms]

Bad grammar/logic on the signage shown in today's RAIB report:

 

only_cross.jpg

 

As it stands 2. means that the ONLY thing you are allowed to do when the green light shows is to cross. Turning round and going home isn't allowed. And if the green light isn't showing, there are no instructions on what you can or can't do.

 

It should read "Cross ONLY when green light shows".

 

A misplaced 'only' is a common mistake in everyday speech and writing. But one would hope that designers of railway safety systems are better than that and hot on logic. If they can't think clearly and logically about the wording, can they be trusted to do so in the circuit designs and software?

 

Martin.

It is a very fine line IMO to write a sign, that conveys an accurate message, with a minimum number of words.

 

The longer a message gets, the less likely 1/ That people will read ALL of it. 2/ The chance of it being fully understood.

[duncan]

I’m sorry but I don’t agree with most of the preceding posts.

 

If I was approaching an unfamiliar crossing I would be wary. I would not use buttons on a pole with no instructions. Then there is a stop sign. The instruction sign is at the stop sign for a reason, you stop and read. The red light is the last sign before actually crossing.

 

The number of signs would be more likely to make me stop to read them, especially a red light. OK, it is fairly small, but then so are all the signs, except the stop sign.

 

A contractor probably does not consider the trailer to be large or slow, but the trailer stand seems to be pretty close to the ground in picture 5, especially as the back of the tractor is in the air due to the front being low. Yes, the hydraulic lifters could be fully down in the picture, as a consequence of the incident.

These are just my thoughts.

Edited April 29, 2016 by duncan

[Poggy1165]

I’m sorry but I don’t agree with most of the preceding posts.

 

If I was approaching an unfamiliar crossing I would be wary. I would not use buttons on a pole with no instructions. Then there is a stop sign. The instruction sign is at the stop sign for a reason, you stop and read. The red light is the last sign before actually crossing.

 

The number of signs would be more likely to make me stop to read them, especially a red light. OK, it is fairly small, but then so are all the signs, except the stop sign.

 

A contractor probably does not consider the trailer to be large or slow, but the trailer stand seems to be pretty close to the ground in picture 5, especially as the back of the tractor is in the air due to the front being low. Yes, the hydraulic lifters could be fully down in the picture, as a consequence of the incident.

These are just my thoughts.

 

Yes sir, but you are a sensible person, evidently, and as you are posting on here you probably know something of the way trains stop. Unfortunately, that makes you atypical of the Great British Public.

[Glorious NSE]

If I was approaching an unfamiliar crossing I would be wary. I would not use buttons on a pole with no instructions. Then there is a stop sign. The instruction sign is at the stop sign for a reason, you stop and read. The red light is the last sign before actually crossing.

 

But the only sign located with the stop sign is a rather pointless (from a safety point of view) one telling you that you might be on CCTV. You'd have to look in an entirely different direction to the stop sign to read the instructions for the crossing.

The instruction sign says "stop here", but is about a metre further forward from the stop sign.

Is the correct procedure to stop twice?
 

 

 A contractor probably does not consider the trailer to be large or slow, but the trailer stand seems to be pretty close to the ground in picture 5, especially as the back of the tractor is in the air due to the front being low. Yes, the hydraulic lifters could be fully down in the picture, as a consequence of the incident.

 

But the instruction about "large or slow" has been helpfully hidden behind the telephone and a further sign, so to read that from the cab you'd already have had to open the gates and driven forward, the last thing you want folk to be doing at that point is stopping again to read that sign, or taking their attention away from the lights...

Human eyes work on picking up movements, with your brain filling in lots of blanks about what it expects is in the rest of your vision, as a species we aren't great at noticing things that have changed whilst we've been looking in a completely different direction, given that, I'm not at all surprised that the driver didn't pick up on a light that went from green to red whilst he was working the operating buttons.


 

[The Stationmaster]

 

 

 

But the instruction about "large or slow" has been helpfully hidden behind the telephone and a further sign, so to read that from the cab you'd already have had to open the gates and driven forward, the last thing you want folk to be doing at that point is stopping again to read that sign, or taking their attention away from the lights...

 

Human eyes work on picking up movements, with your brain filling in lots of blanks about what it expects is in the rest of your vision, as a species we aren't great at noticing things that have changed whilst we've been looking in a completely different direction, given that, I'm not at all surprised that the driver didn't pick up on a light that went from green to red whilst he was working the operating buttons.

 

 

 

 

 

That is the biggest problem with the signage you aren't told about the large vehicle situation until after you have obtained permission to proceed and similarly the telephone is not is the same place as the push button.  Overall it is an extremely badly designed - assuming it was designed - jumble of signage and equipment.  In fact the only things which are properly relatively sited are the Stop sign and the miniature red/green lights.

 

I am surprised there is not a standard for this new equipment and signing method but if there is one and this crossing complies with it then something is seriously adrift somewhere.  The wording of signage is a serious matter and requires considerable thought by folk with the right experience and equally words on signs should not be misused.  I have recently had to wrestle with drafting an Instruction for what is in essence an extremely simple (a single letter of the alphabet!) sign and even that is not as easy a task as it might sound because in this particular case it is a conditional sign - they always tend to be the most difficult.

[Welly]

Some unpleasant individual actually trespassed on an LC with barriers down and verbally abused a 12 year old boy who was out with his father filming trains in Worksop. BTP would like to know the ID of said individual.

 

http://media.btp.police.uk/r/12753/12_year-old_train_enthusiast_verbally_abused_whil

[LNERGE]

It isn't always the motorist that doesn't stop...

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

That is the biggest problem with the signage you aren't told about the large vehicle situation until after you have obtained permission to proceed and similarly the telephone is not is the same place as the push button.  Overall it is an extremely badly designed - assuming it was designed - jumble of signage and equipment.  In fact the only things which are properly relatively sited are the Stop sign and the miniature red/green lights.

 

I am surprised there is not a standard for this new equipment and signing method but if there is one and this crossing complies with it then something is seriously adrift somewhere.  The wording of signage is a serious matter and requires considerable thought by folk with the right experience and equally words on signs should not be misused.  I have recently had to wrestle with drafting an Instruction for what is in essence an extremely simple (a single letter of the alphabet!) sign and even that is not as easy a task as it might sound because in this particular case it is a conditional sign - they always tend to be the most difficult.

 

The official RAIB report goes into these aspects in quite some detail - and yes something (or rather many somethings) went adrift.

 

From the report:-

 

Identification of underlying factors

 

Management of the trial POGO installation

 

Network Rail did not ensure that the risks to crossing users at Oakwood Farm UWC were adequately mitigated.

 

The factors related to this are:

• Network Rail did not adequately control the design and installation of the wiring of the gate operating buttons at Oakwood Farm UWC (paragraph 74);
• Network Rail did not implement previously recommended improvements to Oakwood Farm UWC (paragraph 80); and
• Network Rail did not risk assess the POGO as a full system before installing it at Oakwood Farm UWC (paragraph 88).

 

Further in the report also states this:-

 

Pratts Lower UWC is located between Billingshurst and Christs Hospital stations in West Sussex, and had been fitted with the first version of the POGO equipment in early 2010.  Pratts Lower was the only other UWC with MSLs for which authority had been given under the first trial product acceptance certificate. The installation of the POGO equipment at Pratts Lower UWC, unlike Oakwood Farm UWC, did not have the additional buttons on the left-hand side of the crossing approaches. The equipment at both crossings included optical sensors whose purpose was to prevent the gates closing if the open/close button was pressed while a vehicle was travelling over the crossing.

 

In May 2014 there was a near miss between a train and two road vehicles, when the gates closed and trapped both vehicles on the crossing. The vehicles managed to move clear around 20 seconds before the arrival of the train. On the basis of the initial incident notification, the RAIB wrote to Network Rail and requested that the subsequent Network Rail investigation consider:

• details of the POGO trial’s project plan, including duration of trial, how it was being monitored and assessed to be left in place and installed at other locations
• how the risk of potential malfunctions was identified and addressed for the trial.

The subsequent Network Rail investigation found that:

• the control system associated with the optical sensors had been set up incorrectly following rectification of another fault;
• Network Rail had not trained its technicians in the testing and maintenance of the POGO equipment because no training instructions had been provided (despite this being a condition of the trial acceptance certificate);
• there was no clear evidence that any risk assessment had been undertaken which could have identified the possibility of wrongly setting up the control system;
• there was no evidence that any assessment had been done of the operational risks of the POGO equipment before the trial;  
• there was no evidence that a formal trial had been conducted and reviewed by the certificate’s expiry date in March 2010 (which was also a condition of the trial acceptance certificate)
• for the period between March and December 2010, there was no valid certification in place for the POGO installation.  

All Items above (except the 1st one), were also applicable to the first POGO equipment during the time it was installed at Oakwood Farm UWC.

 

The report made recommendations to Network Rail to review the following:

 

• the POGO control system at Pratts Lower UWC and any derivatives, to eliminate the risk of wrongly setting it up as far as is practicable;
• the robustness of accepting new equipment onto the operational railway with regard to how practical training is given to personnel responsible for its maintenance to ensure that they are fully conversant with new equipment before it becomes operational;
• the process of how the manufacturer’s product training documentation is made available to those responsible for its maintenance;
• the robustness of how the trial process is completed and full product acceptance granted, to ensure that all new equipment is suitably authorised to be in use.

Following a review of Network Rail’s investigation, the RAIB wrote to Network Rail in February 2014 (copied to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR)) expressing the following concerns:

• that the investigation had been conducted at a local, and not at a national level, given that the consequences of the incident could have resulted in fatalities;
• that the sequence of events during the design, installation and commissioning of the POGO equipment could not be determined because there were insufficient records of what was done during these stages; and
• that the introduction of the POGO equipment was not suitably managed with respect to risks that it may have introduced.

The RAIB also advised Network Rail that it should consider a review of the process of introducing new technology, including the level of safety assurance to be adopted.  In particular it advised that it should review the provision of information and training to maintenance staff.  It also advised Network Rail to consider reviewing the risk assessment process as applied to new equipment, including the proper use of risk assessment techniques to identify risk control measures.

 

Following the accident at Oakwood Farm UWC, the RAIB asked Network Rail to provide an update on the progress of the recommendations made within its own report into the near miss at Pratts Lower UWC.  Network Rail has provided no evidence that it had reviewed the control system at the crossing, or any derivatives.  Neither has it provided the RAIB with any evidence that it has reviewed the robustness of how the trial process was completed and how full product acceptance was granted for new equipment.

 

So yes NR monumentally screwed up what should have been a straight forward and rather good concept (i.e. how to deal with gates being left open by crossing users) and totally messed it up. It is only luck that has prevented fatalities so far and it should be a wake up to all at HQ that 'projects' need to be properly organised AND MODIFIED if found wanting. To many projects get left unfinished (though rarely in an unsafe condition) with maintenance left to pick up the pieces.

Edited April 29, 2016 by phil-b259

[Kenton]

 

Some unpleasant individual actually trespassed on an LC with barriers down and verbally abused a 12 year old boy who was out with his father filming trains in Worksop. BTP would like to know the ID of said individual.

 

 

 

Not quite sure which is the matter that requires seeking out this individual. The certain trespass or the alleged "verbal abuse". Although no details are given of the nature of the "verbal abuse" I would guess it was hardly any more significant that that which would be encountered in the average playground. But crossing the tracks the wrong side of the barriers is a definite no no. However, the way the report has been written it gets better potential press coverage if it implies something more sinister to do with a child. Surely a photo in the local press is going to stand a more likely chance of a result than national coverage on a relatively obscure web site?