Level crossing stupidity...

[Ian Hargrave]

This is appalling. .I live within a few miles of the ex-N.Staffs Derby-Crewe line and use it from time to time..It has quite a few such crossings as this serves,at least at its Southern end,a mainly rural,farming community. It would seem to me that the NFU should highlight this situation as a priority for its community and railwaymen and rail users in general.Not knowing where trains are  ? This is the 21st century not the dark days of the man with the flag.

[The Stationmaster]

Sadly Martin, almost every box has sections where there is only a 'rough' idea of where the train is, and this is only going to get worse with the movement of trains to the ROCs, as not only will the workstations cover longer areas of line, but the man at the desk will have less interaction with each train, so that when a call comes in, he is even less likely to know where the trains are. 

 

There have also been instances where, during resignallings, the location of crossings have been put in the wrong place related to track ccts on the panel. One such case almost caused an accident.

 

I'm afraid that by removing local control and supervision is actually going to increase these sorts of issues in the long term.

 

Andy G

 

We appear to be going into some very difficult territory regarding 'level crossings' and it certainly isn't the fault of Signalmen(lers).

 

The problem is that in this day and age because of some sort of hysteria at national level just about everything in creation which crosses a railway line on the level is called, highly inaccurately in most cases, 'a level crossing' and all are regarded with the same sort of trepidation and a certain attitude as far as equipment is concerned.  For instance less than a couple of miles from where I am sitting Notwork (in this case) Rail show the existence of two 'level crossings' in its national list and this shows up the stupidity of their rather bland categorisation as one is a footpath which happens to give access to the station platform as well as providing a route across the railway while the other is a real, statutory, Level Crossing covered by a real Level Crossing Order and is an AOCL(B).  However if some clown is counting level crossings in this manner why have they completely omitted another foot path crossing just past the other end of that station and which is far more dangerous in sighting terms than the one they have listed?  Equally the next crossing along the branch is a UWC crossing described as 'high risk' but where animal movements - the most likely use of it - aren't even mentioned.  

 

So in my view the first thing NR needs to do (and RAIB come to that) is to properly categorise crossings and separately list them in each category and not in some amorphous, and rather misleading, lump which confuses peoples' understanding of such things.  An Occupation or Accommodation crossing is no way on a par with a statutory Level Crossing - the risks are completely different (and can be potentially more dangerous) while the modus operandi are also completely different and should not be confused with the level of protection required at statutory level crossings because the nature of the usage and users is also totally different.

 

Coming back to the incident at Thorny Marsh Lane accommodation or occupation crossing (not a statutory Level Crossing)  it happens that this particular crossing is one one my former patches and to be blunt I didn't even know, without looking, that it was there because it was just another, of very many (we had over 100 and only a couple had 'phones), accommodation crossings with excellent intervisibilty and not one where we ever had any sort of user problems causing us any concern.  The intervisibilty would still be excellent if somebody bothered to get the lineside jungle under control and cut down all the blasted trees and undergrowth while train speeds haven't changed for years - i.e. the risk hasn't changed.  Interestingly the NR survey information for this crossing identifies 'low sighting time' as a particular risk, notwithstanding the fact that the crossing is on a long straight stretch of single line on a former double track formation (but doesn't mention the low sighting is due to overgrowth and trees of course).  

 

Clearly at the time of Westbury MAS it was decided for whatever reason (that it's on a lane?)  to provide a telephone to Westbury panel and the signage is probably contemporaneous with that change.  I'm not suggesting that any of this is unnecessary but it will always be difficult with such crossings, especially those in very long sections such as this one, to ensure absolutely precise communication when the Signalman can only make an educated guess where a train actually is and his/her attention might have been diverted to numerous other things after the train entered the section - if he/she happened to be aware of that time in the first place.  

 

The very fact that this sort of very different crossing is lumped in with fully protected statutory Level Crossings is in my view blurring the perception of them in parts of the rail industry and RAIB.  I suspect that very few people, if any, at critical decision making levels in the industry actually have any sort of front line experience in dealing with such crossings and indeed to my mind the very fact they lump them in with statutory crossings tends to prove that is the case as they seemingly regard them as 'the same' and 'just another level crossing' - which they very definitely are not.

 

There is equally no doubt in my mind that some crossings of this sort can be very dangerous - often simply because of the type of vehicles likely to use them - but at the same time they have the potential advantage of almost exclusively being used by people familiar with them.  These key points need to be addressed in looking at safety implications at such crossings and all else apart there must be a proper campaign to clear the lineside jungle where it interferes with intervisibility for, probably, at least a mile each side of the crossing (on straight track).  Beyond that any sort of further protection, or indeed any protection at all, has to be considered in relation to what they are and the fact that they are very different animals from statutory level crossings.

[The Stationmaster]

This is appalling. .I live within a few miles of the ex-N.Staffs Derby-Crewe line and use it from time to time..It has quite a few such crossings as this serves,at least at its Southern end,a mainly rural,farming community. It would seem to me that the NFU should highlight this situation as a priority for its community and railwaymen and rail users in general.Not knowing where trains are  ? This is the 21st century not the dark days of the man with the flag.

I know that the NFU has in the past done exactly that - but that was back in BR days and possibly when people in the railway industry understood that we were not talking about 'level crossings' but something very different.

[Glorious NSE]

It would seem we are not the only country with signalmen not knowing where their trains are:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/38750698

Not a 'signalman' issue at all, that's equipment failure.

[martin_wynne]

a telephone to Westbury panel and the signage is probably contemporaneous with that change.  I'm not suggesting that any of this is unnecessary but it will always be difficult with such crossings, especially those in very long sections such as this one, to ensure absolutely precise communication when the Signalman can only make an educated guess where a train actually is

 

Hi Mike,

 

But in this case it was nothing to do with signage or visibility. It was a garbled phone call. One which could have been easily avoided by modern technology.

 

Many of the passengers on that train, and probably the driver, would have had in their pocket a device which could have saved the situation. All it needed for the signaller to know where the train was, would have been a means for the signaller to contact such a device, and get it to report back the current GPS position.

 

I know these things have to be made fail-safe, so that 2 or more devices must return the same information. And if no satisfactory connection is available, the answer is no. Do all trains now have a reliable ship-to-shore radio system?

 

The radio device in front of me now which can provide the above GPS information cost me just £69 including vat. Not exactly a fortune to fit a few suchlike to every train? Why not give every railway vehicle its own mobile phone number? Able to respond to a "Where are you?" call.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited January 26, 2017 by martin_wynne

[Dunsignalling]

This is appalling. .I live within a few miles of the ex-N.Staffs Derby-Crewe line and use it from time to time..It has quite a few such crossings as this serves,at least at its Southern end,a mainly rural,farming community. It would seem to me that the NFU should highlight this situation as a priority for its community and railwaymen and rail users in general.Not knowing where trains are  ? This is the 21st century not the dark days of the man with the flag.

All the signaller knows, in most cases, irrespective of the signalling system in use, is which signal a train has most recently passed and the next one it will approach.

 

If there is crossing with phone (as opposed to a "proper" level crossing) in the section, the procedure is to refuse permission to cross unless the user can confirm that the train has just passed (or better still, you hear it do so over the phone). Otherwise, he/she will be instructed to call again after x minutes when the train is expected to be out of section.

 

The smart regular users get to know the timetable and will phone immediately after a train passes, knowing that, so long as everything is running to plan, permission will not be refused.

 

My own patch included one single-line section that was over 15 miles long (since converted into two separated by a 3-mile dynamic loop). There was one farm crossing (since removed) from which we hardly ever got a call despite my having observed, when walking in the area, numerous tracks on either side, suggesting it to be very actively used.

 

It eventually transpired that the farmer, whose house was only yards away, had worked out that the position of his crossing was such that, if a train passed, it was physically impossible for another one to approach from either direction for almost ten minutes. It was pointed out to him that he should not only ask permission to cross but that "his way" was only safe if nothing went wrong and that the "I'm now clear of the crossing" call was just as important. After that, he was as good as gold for movements of livestock or equipment but I'm pretty sure to this day that, If he was just crossing on foot, he carried on as before. 

 

John   

Edited January 26, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[uax6]

Hi Mike,

 

But in this case it was nothing to do with signage or visibility. It was a garbled phone call. One which could have been easily avoided by modern technology.

 

Many of the passengers on that train, and probably the driver, would have had in their pocket a device which could have saved the situation. All it needed for the signaller to know where the train was, would have been a means for the signaller to contact such a device, and get it to report back the current GPS position.

 

I know these things have to be made fail-safe, so that 2 or more devices must return the same information. And if no satisfactory connection is available, the answer is no. Do all trains now have a reliable ship-to-shore radio system?

 

The radio device in front of me now which can provide the above GPS information cost me just £69 including vat. Not exactly a fortune to fit a few suchlike to every train? Why not give every railway vehicle its own mobile phone number? Able to respond to a "Where are you?" call.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

I'm sure its all possible, but, in the real world, where NR has already found that the money that has fallen down the sides of the sofa has been spent, who is going to pay?

 

All boxes have GSM-R as do all traction, but even that installation isn't perfect, as trains can call into the wrong box due to cell issues (even worse with no train describers in use.

 

All we can do is as is said above....

 

Andy G

[Dunsignalling]

Hi Mike,

 

But in this case it was nothing to do with signage or visibility. It was a garbled phone call. One which could have been easily avoided by modern technology.

 

Many of the passengers on that train, and probably the driver, would have had in their pocket a device which could have saved the situation. All it needed for the signaller to know where the train was, would have been a means for the signaller to contact such a device, and get it to report back the current GPS position.

 

I know these things have to be made fail-safe, so that 2 or more devices must return the same information. And if no satisfactory connection is available, the answer is no. Do all trains now have a reliable ship-to-shore radio system?

 

The radio device in front of me now which can provide the above GPS information cost me just £69 including vat. Not exactly a fortune to fit a few suchlike to every train? Why not give every railway vehicle its own mobile phone number? Able to respond to a "Where are you?" call.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

All trains on NR now do have a sensible radio system connected to whatever signal box/signalling centre is controlling the line they are on. [EDIT: but see Post 1710 - like all technology, it isn't totally bullet proof]. What isn't in the package (at least as yet) is for all signalling locations to have metre-perfect information as to where trains are at any given moment.

 

The trouble with introducing GPS as another layer of mandatory signalling technology to every vehicle (as opposed to GSMR communication technology fitted to every driving cab) is that whenever one of these $69 devices fails, it will create yet another reason for cancelling a service. 

 

In the fullness of time, I hope GPS transponders will be fitted to every item of rolling stock, but as part of a system that does away with most of the track circuits and all of the axle-counters that we currently rely upon.

 

It definitely needs to be "instead of" not "in addition to" otherwise NR end up expensively maintaining parallel systems when the old should have been displaced by a proper, system-wide application of the new. And yes, I do mean TPWS and AWS.

 

John

Edited January 26, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Mike,

 

But in this case it was nothing to do with signage or visibility. It was a garbled phone call. One which could have been easily avoided by modern technology.

 

Many of the passengers on that train, and probably the driver, would have had in their pocket a device which could have saved the situation. All it needed for the signaller to know where the train was, would have been a means for the signaller to contact such a device, and get it to report back the current GPS position.

 

I know these things have to be made fail-safe, so that 2 or more devices must return the same information. And if no satisfactory connection is available, the answer is no. Do all trains now have a reliable ship-to-shore radio system?

 

The radio device in front of me now which can provide the above GPS information cost me just £69 including vat. Not exactly a fortune to fit a few suchlike to every train? Why not give every railway vehicle its own mobile phone number? Able to respond to a "Where are you?" call.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

You miss the point Martin - if the visibility was good there would have been an additional check of actually being able to see a train from a long way off, and there is no reason at that crossing why the visibility should not be good as the poor visibility is down to lack of lineside 'housekeeping'.

 

An important and potentially relevant point which is not made in the Report, or elsewhere, is that the section concerned is track circuited and that there are actually a whole lot of track circuits but they only indicate on the panel as one (or possibly three?) so the Signalman(ler) would have better information if track circuits were shown individually where it mattered - which again would cost money, lots of money.  But regrettably this all comes down to money in the end and verbal messages are never going to be a substitute for that as railway history has long shown and indeed as you are emphasising.

 

However coming back to the man in the 'box at Westbury we do need to consider what else he was doing and he could well have been busy with other things (quite likely was) so would be unlikely to pay much attention to a train on the Weymouth branch once it was in section.  If he had to search for a GPS signal from it (assuming a reliable one is achievable in that area?) what else won't he be doing?  Just how many farm crossings would he be looking after (considering that on his section of the panel he would have what in days past was undoubtedly the occupation crossing with the worst user discipline I have ever come across - hopefully that has improved).

 

IF (no apologies for the capitalisation) the industry were to actually consider occupation and accommodation crossings in the way they have had to be considered on lines converted to High Speed running (i.e. 100mph+) then the problem would go away because the crossings would vanish.  But that too comes back to cost and lack of financial justification on secondary routes - but in the end it is the only reliable answer to avoid such collisions.

[Grovenor]

so the Signalman(ler) would have better information if track circuits were shown individually where it mattered - which again would cost money, lots of money.

Splitting up the track circuits would be expensive as a retrofit but done with the scheme install would only have been a small marginal cost, with additional benefits on the MTTR when a fault occurred. With the use of axle counters avoiding the problems of such long track circuit sections it does become a bigger task to sectionalise however, so new techniques are not helping in this case.

But it is hardly fair on a signaller to require them to advise crossing users about the running of trains but giving them no positive means of knowing where the trains are with sifficient accuracy.

Regards

Edited January 26, 2017 by Grovenor

[96701]

However if some clown is counting level crossings in this manner why have they completely omitted another foot path crossing just past the other end of that station and which is far more dangerous in sighting terms than the one they have listed?  

 

So in my view the first thing NR needs to do (and RAIB come to that) is to properly categorise crossings and separately list them in each category and not in some amorphous, and rather misleading, lump which confuses peoples' understanding of such things.  An Occupation or Accommodation crossing is no way on a par with a statutory Level Crossing - the risks are completely different (and can be potentially more dangerous) while the modus operandi are also completely different and should not be confused with the level of protection required at statutory level crossings because the nature of the usage and users is also totally different.

 

 

Mike,

 

You and I could fall out if you continue to refer to me as a clown. And by the way, the All Level Crossing Risk Model (ALCRM) does differentiate between the different crossings and also carries all sorts of risk assessment results that are provided by Level Crossing Managers who were introduced following the untimely and totally avoidable deaths of 2 schoolgirls at Elsenham. Things have changed a lot since your day, and all for the better, so please stop harping on about crossing types.

 

On the other hand, if you can pass me details of the 2 crossings that you can't see on the NR website, I'll happily pass the info onto the relevant Route Leve Crossing Manager.

 

Hi Mike,

 

But in this case it was nothing to do with signage or visibility. It was a garbled phone call. One which could have been easily avoided by modern technology.

 

Many of the passengers on that train, and probably the driver, would have had in their pocket a device which could have saved the situation. All it needed for the signaller to know where the train was, would have been a means for the signaller to contact such a device, and get it to report back the current GPS position.

 

I know these things have to be made fail-safe, so that 2 or more devices must return the same information. And if no satisfactory connection is available, the answer is no. Do all trains now have a reliable ship-to-shore radio system?

 

The radio device in front of me now which can provide the above GPS information cost me just £69 including vat. Not exactly a fortune to fit a few suchlike to every train? Why not give every railway vehicle its own mobile phone number? Able to respond to a "Where are you?" call.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Unfortunately, a mobile GPS device is not sufficient as yet because we don't have satellite navigation mapping that is sufficiently accurate, repeatable and reliable to say with pinpoint accuracy exactly where a train is. We have to rely on the signalling system, and if your block is many miles long (qv Central Wales line) how could any signaller, whether at Craven Arms, Pantyffynnon or Cardiff know exactly where the train is, particularly when there are many crossings in a short space?

[96701]

You miss the point Martin - if the visibility was good there would have been an additional check of actually being able to see a train from a long way off, and there is no reason at that crossing why the visibility should not be good as the poor visibility is down to lack of lineside 'housekeeping'.

 

An important and potentially relevant point which is not made in the Report, or elsewhere, is that the section concerned is track circuited and that there are actually a whole lot of track circuits but they only indicate on the panel as one (or possibly three?) so the Signalman(ler) would have better information if track circuits were shown individually where it mattered - which again would cost money, lots of money.  But regrettably this all comes down to money in the end and verbal messages are never going to be a substitute for that as railway history has long shown and indeed as you are emphasising.

 

However coming back to the man in the 'box at Westbury we do need to consider what else he was doing and he could well have been busy with other things (quite likely was) so would be unlikely to pay much attention to a train on the Weymouth branch once it was in section.  If he had to search for a GPS signal from it (assuming a reliable one is achievable in that area?) what else won't he be doing?  Just how many farm crossings would he be looking after (considering that on his section of the panel he would have what in days past was undoubtedly the occupation crossing with the worst user discipline I have ever come across - hopefully that has improved).

 

IF (no apologies for the capitalisation) the industry were to actually consider occupation and accommodation crossings in the way they have had to be considered on lines converted to High Speed running (i.e. 100mph+) then the problem would go away because the crossings would vanish.  But that too comes back to cost and lack of financial justification on secondary routes - but in the end it is the only reliable answer to avoid such collisions.

The only safe level crossing is a closed one.

 

In terms of sighting, the indications are that the sighting can be altered by the type of vehicle that is used. The view from a car is entirely different to that from a tractor, so the decision point can be in a completely different place which means that we end up with either more veg to clear with the worst case being the application of a Temporary Speed Restriction where veg is not the problem. 

 

You are quite right to argue that there should never be crossings on lines with high speed running, but we do have situations where we've dropped the speed to walking pace in order to prevent death. What price safety? Change all crossings to bridges? That would be a tad pricey.

[phil-b259]

Splitting up the track circuits would be expensive as a retrofit but done with the scheme install would only have been a small marginal cost, with additional benefits on the MTTR when a fault occurred. With the use of axle counters avoiding the problems of such long track circuit sections it does become a bigger task to sectionalise however, so new techniques are not helping in this case.

But it is hardly fair on a signaller to require them to advise crossing users about the running of trains but giving them no positive means of knowing where the trains are with sifficient accuracy.

Regards

 

You clearly have missed what Mike said one of his previous posts.

 

A track circuit which involves electricity being passed along a length of rail from one end to another can only go so far before it becomes unusable - due to the laws of physics. Thus sections of track with long distances between signals have always been made up from a number of individual track circuits. To illustrate this I was told* that when the Swindon - Kemble line was singled, this required 16 track circuits to cover the distance, precisely due to the laws of physics rather than any desire by BR to spend money simply to know where a train might be within the block section.

 

In later years (before it was re-doubled) axle counters were installed which at a stroke increased reliability and dramatically reduced the number of things that could go wrong (and thus screw up the service) - yet also reduced the number of sections and reduced the ability to detect where the train was considerably.

 

However to return to the point in hand, it doesn't matter how many track circuits / axle counters are located between signals - you can only put a single train in there. As such why does the signaller need to know which 'bit' of the section is occupied? Either the entire thing is free of trains and can thus have a route set into it, or its not. If just one section out of 10 fails the signaller still has to caution through all 10 sections as caution has to be from signal to signal - not from a random location to another random location

 

As such it makes very little sense to go to the trouble of indicating every single track individually in the signal box - far more sensible from an operating point of view to lump them together as a single track circuit - because thats how the signallers treat them when it comes to signalling trains. On the area I cover for faults, I have two block sections that actually consist of 6 individual track circuits (and are indicated to the signalman as "JQ1-4" & "JQ5/6" on one line and "NK1/2" & "NK3-6" on the other - the split into two chunks being due to the presence of a tunnel)

 

Furthermore back before the days of SSI and IECCs every extra function you took back to the box represented a significant cost in terms of extra wiring, relays and transmission equipment which BR considered not financially justified given the financial environment it was required to operate in. As such they arranged for the individual track circuits to be amalgamated on site then sent back as a single entity.  For the same reasons the state of signals in plain line areas was not normally indicated in the box (they work automatically based on the state of the block section ahead - clear or occupied, and the status of the next signal at the end of the block) - if one is stuck at red the first thing a signaller will know is a driver ringing up on the radio / SPT to tell them.

 

* On a training course to learn about axle counters

Edited January 26, 2017 by phil-b259

[Grovenor]

As such why does the signaller need to know which 'bit' of the section is occupied?

For the obvious reason, in this case that the signaller is being asked to tell persons wishing to cross the track if it is safe to cross, and hence needs to know if the train is approaching the crossing or has passed. Nothing to do with block sections or signalling routes.

 

Of course lots of things were done to save money, not always with justification, all depends on the attitude to risks at the time. And as SM did say, keeping the lineside clear of trees, as used to be done makes a big difference to the risk. Putting in the phone gave the signaller a job but did not give them the means to do it properly.

regards

 

*been designing, installing and maintaining axle counters, among other things, for 40 years

Edited January 26, 2017 by Grovenor

[martin_wynne]

A lot of discussion there about railway operating practice from the point of view of the railway, and nothing addressing the point of view of the paying passenger.

 

The fact remains that in this case a serious accident with possible loss of life was averted ENTIRELY by the quick thinking on the part of the tractor driver (who had been told it was safe to cross), and by almost NOTHING on the part of the railway.  

 

If I was a passenger on that train I think a thank-you note to the tractor driver would be in order. I hope the railway have sent him one.

 

Martin.

[Guest]

A lot of discussion there about railway operating practice from the point of view of the railway, and nothing addressing the point of view of the paying passenger.

 

Is that not to be expected given the nature of this forum, populated by railway enthusiasts and a good smattering of current and former railway professionals? It's not the fare-paying passenger that can make changes and improve saftey. That would require a deep understanding of the subject and a position of some influence. No disrespect to anyone travelling on that train, but I'd hazard a guess that they have neither. Some of us on this forum may have a deep understanding of the subject, but no clout to make changes. Discussion of operating procedure is our only option, and it's very welcome and informative.

The "point of view" of the fare-paying passenger is that they should expect their ticket price to get them to their destination in one piece. That's fair enough, obviously, but what can be done? Someone pointed out that the only safe level crossing is a closed one. That's not going to happen. Human error could be taken out of the equation by relying on 100% automation for absolutely everything. Humans not required. I'm not sure I would support or want that.

I think we are stuck with the system we have and the best we can hope for is to learn from these incidents and strive for them not to be repeated.

[Titan]

Signalling is not my speciality, but I do wonder if there is a cheap and simple solution to this problem of user operated crossings in long sections. Track circuits I believe mostly work on 6V. I expect that a high intensity LED could be put in parallel across the rails next to the crossing without drawing enough power to affect track circuit operation. The light would then go out when the track circuit is occupied. Fail safe too - "Only cross when light shows". If the IBJ is close to the crossing then a couple of small relays and diodes - hardly expensive or complicated - would ensure that if either track circuit is operated the light goes out, whilst allowing both circuits to function normally. All extra wiring would be minimal and only in the vicinity of the crossing, and certainly much cheaper than providing a phone to the signalman. Would result in the odd situation that the level crossing user would have a better idea of where the train is than the signaller...

[Reorte]

Signalling is not my speciality, but I do wonder if there is a cheap and simple solution to this problem of user operated crossings in long sections. Track circuits I believe mostly work on 6V. I expect that a high intensity LED could be put in parallel across the rails next to the crossing without drawing enough power to affect track circuit operation. The light would then go out when the track circuit is occupied. Fail safe too - "Only cross when light shows". If the IBJ is close to the crossing then a couple of small relays and diodes - hardly expensive or complicated - would ensure that if either track circuit is operated the light goes out, whilst allowing both circuits to function normally. All extra wiring would be minimal and only in the vicinity of the crossing, and certainly much cheaper than providing a phone to the signalman. Would result in the odd situation that the level crossing user would have a better idea of where the train is than the signaller...

I'm speaking from an area of no expertise (so perhaps I should shut up) but I'm guessing that this may be the case where probably workable ideas aren't that hard to come up with but developing them to be sufficiently robust, then the expense of getting them approved, then fitting them to a vast number of accommodation crossings might make it a no-no. That said some version of that idea already appears to exist, I have seen foot crossings with a light, and on fairly high-speed lines. One example was at the end of the platform at Penrith for a barrow crossing (no other step-free access then, although I'm guessing the lift is working by now). I would also guess that it wasn't a "random members of the public use it as you see fit" crossing.

[Coryton]

I'm speaking from an area of no expertise (so perhaps I should shut up) but I'm guessing that this may be the case where probably workable ideas aren't that hard to come up with but developing them to be sufficiently robust, then the expense of getting them approved, then fitting them to a vast number of accommodation crossings might make it a no-no. That said some version of that idea already appears to exist, I have seen foot crossings with a light, and on fairly high-speed lines. One example was at the end of the platform at Penrith for a barrow crossing (no other step-free access then, although I'm guessing the lift is working by now). I would also guess that it wasn't a "random members of the public use it as you see fit" crossing.

 

There are still places with white lights that indicate it's safe for staff to cross the line. I don't know what makes the light go on or off...

[Coryton]

You and I could fall out if you continue to refer to me as a clown. And by the way, the All Level Crossing Risk Model (ALCRM) does differentiate between the different crossings and also carries all sorts of risk assessment results that are provided by Level Crossing Managers who were introduced following the untimely and totally avoidable deaths of 2 schoolgirls at Elsenham. Things have changed a lot since your day, and all for the better, so please stop harping on about crossing types.

 

I am quite curious as to how the risks are calculated.

 

There is a foot crossing near to me classified on the Network Rail web site with a "collective risk" 2 on a scale from 1 to 13.

 

It doesn't have red/green lights and relies on pedestrians looking and listening for trains.

 

However, it's single track and trains can be seen from a long way off. In one direction there is 1 mile of straight track. In the other direction there is only 0.5 miles of straight track but at that point you reach the end of the line.

 

The line limit is 45 mph.

 

However under normal circumstances all trains stop at stations ~ 1000 ft on each side of the crossing and are therefore nowhere near line speed. Trains running non-stop are either braking for the end of the line or still accelerating.

 

The service is at its most frequent 2 trains an hour (and on Sundays zero trains an hour).

 

It is a fairly well used crossing and it would clearly be safer with red/green lights or even automatically locked gates. But I'm surprised that it comes so high risk. The scale doesn't seem to be very granular if there is only one level above this to cover the range between such a safe crossing as this and ones on double track lines with much faster trains and poor sighting.

 

The key risk driver is given as the large numbers of daily users (357) - is that such a lot?

 

I also don't understand why the risk to crossing users is 3/13 but the 'collective risk' which includes those on the train is 2/13, suggesting that those on the train are at a greater risk than pedestrians. Maybe it takes account of the fact that somebody could use the crossing to leave an obstruction there?

 

Network Rail says the train types are passenger and freight, which is odd unless one RHHT train a day in the autumn qualifies it as a freight line.

[beast66606]

I am quite curious as to how the risks are calculated.

 

 

The key risk driver is given as the large numbers of daily users (357) - is that such a lot?

 

 

I think the "quality" of users also counts - for example if it's used by a lot of people with limited mobility because there's a hospice on the route would make it a higher risk.

[lmsforever]

Last night on BBC Oxford a local farmer found his only crossing to the rest of his farm closed by NR ,the reporter did state that a dispute was in progress about the crossing .But this was hardly touched on and NR were made the bad boys for closing the crossing ,the line is Aylesbury to Calvert which is due to be upgraded for the East West line.The overall view of the reporter seemed to be for the former no comments were made by NR I wonder if they were consulted?

[Mark Saunders]

I am quite curious as to how the risks are calculated.

 

There is a foot crossing near to me classified on the Network Rail web site with a "collective risk" 2 on a scale from 1 to 13.

 

 

However under normal circumstances all trains stop at stations ~ 1000 ft on each side of the crossing and are therefore nowhere near line speed. Trains running non-stop are either braking for the end of the line or still accelerating.

 

The service is at its most frequent 2 trains an hour (and on Sundays zero trains an hour).

 

I also don't understand why the risk to crossing users is 3/13 but the 'collective risk' which includes those on the train is 2/13, suggesting that those on the train are at a greater risk than pedestrians. Maybe it takes account of the fact that somebody could use the crossing to leave an obstruction there?

 

Network Rail says the train types are passenger and freight, which is odd unless one RHHT train a day in the autumn qualifies it as a freight line.

 

Trains do not have to stop at stations!

 

Passenger Service frequency is not the issue either!

 

Passengers getting off trains are more focussed on getting home than watching for trains! Several years ago Woodlesford had a Red/Green foot crossing and there were a few near misses as Passengers crossing from the up to the down over the crossing were behaving like sheep and disregarding the warning lights and crossing behind the train with no vision of approaching trains!

 

Freight or Passenger is not really the question other than for those who have just got off a train!

 

Mark Saunders

[Coryton]

Trains do not have to stop at stations!

 

Passenger Service frequency is not the issue either!

 

Passengers getting off trains are more focussed on getting home than watching for trains! Several years ago Woodlesford had a Red/Green foot crossing and there were a few near misses as Passengers crossing from the up to the down over the crossing were behaving like sheep and disregarding the warning lights and crossing behind the train with no vision of approaching trains!

 

Freight or Passenger is not really the question other than for those who have just got off a train!

 

 

A greater frequency of trains means there's more chance that when someone wants to cross there is a train there for them to potentially walk in front of.  (Though I concede a very infrequent service might mean people just assume there won't be a train and are more likely to cross without looking).

 

Likewise almost all (but yes, not all) trains will have just left a station and already be braking for the next one so the chance of someone attempting to cross while a non-stop train is passing through is very low.

 

This crossing is unlikely to be used by somebody who has just got off a train - it's between stations which have their own ways of crossing the line.

 

Perhaps I don't understand what Network Rail mean by risk.

 

I would assume they are asking what the chance of an incident is over a set period of time in which case the above are relevant. (And isn't that definition what you'd want when making a decision as to whether a crossing is considered too dangerous?)

 

But even if you won't let me allow for the fact that most trains are stoppers, and there's only 2 trains an hour (each way), with a 45 mph line limit and very good sighting it's safer than many foot crossings I've used. And yet there's only one risk category higher (for 'collective risk')

 

As for freight or passenger, the reason I mention it is that since this seems to be wrong, maybe everything else on the page is wrong too.

[Reorte]

Perhaps I don't understand what Network Rail mean by risk.

 

I would assume they are asking what the chance of an incident is over a set period of time in which case the above are relevant. (And isn't that definition what you'd want when making a decision as to whether a crossing is considered too dangerous?)

Speaking generally, and also from my own opinions rather than anyone's definitions, both the liklihood of something happening and the severity of the consequences (so if the chances are the same something that'll leave a bruise is lower risk than something that will kill). I also wouldn't be inclined to discount the effects of numerous near misses on drivers even if they never hit anyone, having your heart in your mouth every day isn't any good for anyone.

 

Where I think it gets a bit murkier is how you take the numbers of people involved into account. If the odds of something happening to any particular individual are the same in two different situations. Take two identical crossings, with the same chance of getting hurt on both, but one gets used by ten times as many people. The risks are the same for all individuals whichever they use but the one getting used by ten times the number will get the attention because ten times as many people will get hurt on it. Conversely one that might be very dangerous to use will probably be forgotten about if no-one has used it for the last fifty years.