Level crossing stupidity...

[martin_wynne]

And?

 

Why the combative style in you replies? I hope you are not employed in the railway's public relations department.

 

Martin.

[Coryton]

Nowadays you tend to get a gsm-r call from the box asking if you have passed over a certain crossing if there is any uncertainty, although that is quite a rare occurance

 

I was wondering if that was one solution to the problem, but I assumed the risk of the driver misidentifying where he was would be too great.

 

With a farmer using a fixed phone you know exactly where they are when they say they have already seen the train pass.

[Coryton]

And?

 

An 'Occupation crossing' is NOT the same as a level crossing carrying a public right of way as regards the law or the behaviour expected of users.

 

Occupation crossings are only supposed to be used by the farmer concerned - and the user has no right to start demanding instant access or that they are kept waiting too long. They simply wait must until they get permission - however frustrating it might be.

 

Yes but.....

 

Safety depends on what people actually do, not what they ought to do.

[phil-b259]

Martins first point is what I've tried to highlight in my post in the last page about the failed 'main road' crossing last week, there were people willing to risk it as that barrier had been down for a good 30 mins at least between us being told about it and actually arriving at it

 

Which is why the railway treats level crossings featuring public rights of way differently. While the signage etc tells people what to do there is very little the railway can proactively do to interact with the public on a personal level. As such the need exists to provide additional protection when an equipment failure is indicated - such as cautioning drivers and ensuring they make sure it is safe for them to proceed over said crossing precisely because we know we cannot trust the public.

 

Occupation crossings by contrast are only supposed to be used by specifically authorised persons - which means that users can receive direct and targeted support as to how to use the crossing safely. As with all such 'personal' interactions this is designed around a relationship of trust that simply cannot exist when addressing the public at large. Furthermore with the authorised users details readily available, its far easier to prosecute or apply sanctions in the event that they don't obey the rules - again this is a lot harder in the public environment.

Edited January 28, 2017 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

Why the combative style in you replies? I hope you are not employed in the railway's public relations department.

 

Martin.

 

Yes farmers have business pressures - so do delivery drivers or any other persons that might use level crossings.

 

The rules are there to keep people safe - not to make life easy or make money. Yes there is of course a balance to be struck and yes, that could change over time.

 

Now in the specific case featured in the RAIB report, I freely the crossing user was not the one at fault as it was the signaller who made an error and authorised the user to cross when he shouldn't have. On first glance it may seem unfair that the user should suffer as a result.

 

Long term - if the railway is ever resignalled at that location then maybe it may be appropriate to organise the track circuits such that the signaller has a more precise way of identifying where trains are in relation to the occupation crossings in the area, however changes to the current installation are not economically justified by either the loss of productivity to the farmer or to improve safety. Similarly we don't do Heath-Robinson, non fail safe level crossing equipment in this country and any such suggestions of something being bodged together, however well intentioned, is simply not acceptable. By contrast tightening up the signal box instructions as to under what conditions the signaller may grant the authorised user permission to cross, and some refresher training on safety critical voice comms plus a re-appraisal of the signallers workload are cost effective solutions to the issue in the short - medium term.

 

Finally, as to the tone of my replies, no I don't work in PR - and nor am I ever likely too given my "spade is a spade" outlook on life. While PR has its place, you don't do anyone any favours in my book when it comes to level crossings (or railway matters in general) by being artificially nice or pandering to everyones needs. Increasing the amount of kit to install, maintain and fix when it goes wrong comes at a cost and that cost is sometimes simply not worth it when looked at as part of the bigger picture. With the particular crossing being discussed, the means to guarantee safety is quite straightforward - but the the use will face more delays when they wish to cross and I make no apologies for saying that is the most appropriate solution at this time.

Edited January 28, 2017 by phil-b259

[martin_wynne]

and I make no apologies for saying that is the most appropriate solution at this time.

 

I wasn't complaining about the content of your replies but the tone you adopted in making them.

 

It does seem to me that in this discussion about inconvenience to the crossing user, the safety of the train and passengers seems to have got lost.

 

When these occupation crossings were originally authorised it was very obvious who would come off worse in a collision between a steam locomotive and a horse and cart. Nowadays some very large and heavy farm machinery is using the crossings, and the train might be a lightweight DMU. Telling the user it is safe to take such machinery across the railway line on the basis of asking him if he noticed a train going by recently, hardly seems in keeping with the standards applied to passenger safety elsewhere on the system.

 

Martin.

[phil-b259]

I wasn't complaining about the content of your replies but the tone you adopted in making them.

 

It does seem to me that in this discussion about inconvenience to the crossing user, the safety of the train and passengers seems to have got lost.

 

When these occupation crossings were originally authorised it was very obvious who would come off worse in a collision between a steam locomotive and a horse and cart. Nowadays some very large and heavy farm machinery is using the crossings, and the train might be a lightweight DMU. Telling the user it is safe to take such machinery across the railway line on the basis of asking him if he noticed a train going by recently, hardly seems in keeping with the standards applied to passenger safety elsewhere on the system.

 

Martin.

 

Which is why I said that the signaller simply says "yes" or "no" based on whether the section on his panel is occupied. If the section is occupied then it doesn't mater whether the train has passed the crossing or not - the answer is "No you cannot cross, ring me back at xx:xx" If the train has left the section it clearly cannot be anywhere near the crossing and the answer is "Yes you may cross now" Please telephone me immediately you are clear" or "Yes you may cross now, please ring me back by XX:XX". If the user doesn't ring back the next train service gets cautioned and the authorised user gets a strongly worded letter reminding them to do as the signaller asks next time.

 

Does it protect the safety of passengers? Yes

Does it remove any ambiguity over where trains are? Yes, because nobody is asking anyone anything about whether a train has passed the crossing or not

Does it maintain user access? Yes

Does it keep the user safe? Yes

Does it comply with railway principles that the signaller - not the user, is the one in charge of the crossing? Yes

Does it reduce the chance of misunderstandings and the risk that the signaller is not the one leading the conversation? Yes.

 

The only downside is that the user may face some inconvenience in having to wait longer to cross - but tough,  the economics (as in costs of upgrades versus number of lives saved) do not justify expensive signalling modifications necessary to reduce the wait at this time*. It is a fundamental fact that every £1 you spend on this crossing is £1 you cannot spend on another. As such funds should prioritised for places like the station access at Seamer or a footbridge at Wareham - two crossings where the likelihood of people losing their lives due to crossing misuse is way higher than this occupation crossing. .

 

*If the signalling is ever renewed then making the necessary mods becomes far less costly than a standalone project.

Edited January 28, 2017 by phil-b259

[John_Hughes]

Maybe early on in the system testing but as there are no 'real' line side signals anymore it's not an issue that I'm aware of, I've still not been passed out on ertms yet!

 

Has the problem where the trains disappeared off the system for a mile or so around Bow Street been fixed yet? A system that loses trains when they go into cuttings seems to lack a certain je ne sais quoi, if you see what I mean!

[kevinlms]

Which is why I said that the signaller simply says "yes" or "no" based on whether the section on his panel is occupied. If the section is occupied then it doesn't mater whether the train has passed the crossing or not - the answer is "No you cannot cross, ring me back at xx:xx" If the train has left the section it clearly cannot be anywhere near the crossing and the answer is "Yes you may cross now" Please telephone me immediately you are clear" or "Yes you may cross now, please ring me back by XX:XX". If the user doesn't ring back the next train service gets cautioned and the authorised user gets a strongly worded letter reminding them to do as the signaller asks next time.

 

Does it protect the safety of passengers? Yes

Does it remove any ambiguity over where trains are? Yes, because nobody is asking anyone anything about whether a train has passed the crossing or not

Does it maintain user access? Yes

Does it keep the user safe? Yes

Does it comply with railway principles that the signaller - not the user, is the one in charge of the crossing? Yes

Does it reduce the chance of misunderstandings and the risk that the signaller is not the one leading the conversation? Yes.

 

The only downside is that the user may face some inconvenience in having to wait longer to cross - but tough, the economics (as in costs of upgrades versus number of lives saved) do not justify expensive signalling modifications necessary to reduce the wait at this time*. It is a fundamental fact that every £1 you spend on this crossing is £1 you cannot spend on another. As such funds should prioritised for places like the station access at Seamer or a footbridge at Wareham - two crossings where the likelihood of people losing their lives due to crossing misuse is way higher than this occupation crossing. .

 

*If the signalling is ever renewed then making the necessary mods becomes far less costly than a standalone project.

Just curious you stated for the person who wishes to cross to ring back. Can the signaller call back to a particular crossing phone when his /her panel becomes clear?

[Colin_McLeod]

Train in section meaning don't cross is unworkable.

 

 

Having to wait may be "tough" on the user but if he gets impatient and crosses and causes an accident then it is railway staff and passengers who suffer.

 

Also in the case of a single track it may be that as soon as the train is out of section another train then enters right away. Thus a long section could be occupied for an hour even though there is only a train near the crossing for just a few minutes of that hour.

 

Such a system on double track would be worse.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Colin_McLeod

[The Stationmaster]

I was wondering if that was one solution to the problem, but I assumed the risk of the driver misidentifying where he was would be too great.

 

With a farmer using a fixed phone you know exactly where they are when they say they have already seen the train pass.

 

That can be a very pertinent point.  Back 40 odd years ago when I had a substantial chunk of the Salisbury - Exeter line in my 'parish' we had around 80 occupation and accommodation crossings in 'our' c.60 miles of the route.  I happened to know in railway terms where they all were because I'd somehow acquired a list which gave the milepost mileage of all of them - which was more than could be said for the ex GW side of our patch.

 

But to show what it was like for Drivers we had a collision between a train and a herd of heifers east of Chard Junction resulting in the death of about 14 of the animals.  The Driver knew it was somewhere east of Chard Jcn's Down Distant but he hadn't got a clue what the crossing was called so the Signalman asked him if it might be Forde Abbey - still not sure - let alone whether it was Forde Abbey No,1 or Forde Abbey No.2, or Forde Abbey No.3 (it was the last of the three).  I know the number of crossings on that route has been massively reduced (many were overgrown ) but does every Driver who works over it know what each of them is called?  One thing if it's a fully equipped crossing noted in the Sectional Appendix and many UWC crossings, particularly those with 'phones, are shown in the Sectional Appendix but some footpath crossings definitely aren't.  And can Drivers readily identify - without looking at the book - the ones which are?

 

Train in section meaning don't cross is unworkable.

 

 

Having to wait may be "tough" on the user but if he gets impatient and crosses and causes an accident then it is railway staff and passengers who suffer.

 

Also in the case of a single track it may be that as soon as the train is out of section another train then enters right away. Thus a long section could be occupied for an hour even though there is only a train near the crossing for just a few minutes of that hour.

 

Such a system on double track would be worse.

 

And this of course is the very big hole where provision of a 'phone can be illusory if the Signalman(ler) doesn't know where a train is in a long section.  And this section is not alone in being quite long and being on a single line and having no record of the time at which trains enter it although this one isn't as heavily used as others so there are gaps in line occupation.  But I doubt if anyone would wait 10 minutes or more on the off chance that the train in the section hasn't yet passed his/her crossing

 

Martin's point about the sort of vehicles using this  crossing is also important as, in general, they are now far bigger and considerably more solid than a horse & cart or a herd of shape (although cattle can do serious damage to trains in collisions) so the problem, and risk is, again, potentially greater than that at many controlled crossings.  But having said that apart from closure (the best answer) or far better forms of protection I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem would be - or where the money will come from?

[phil-b259]

Train in section meaning don't cross is unworkable.

 

 

Having to wait may be "tough" on the user but if he gets impatient and crosses and causes an accident then it is railway staff and passengers who suffer.

 

Also in the case of a single track it may be that as soon as the train is out of section another train then enters right away. Thus a long section could be occupied for an hour even though there is only a train near the crossing for just a few minutes of that hour.

 

Such a system on double track would be worse

 

No its not "unworkable" - the correct way of describing your concerns is "It MAY be unworkable". Whether such a statement is correct depends on many factors.

 

This is where an appreciation of the differences between occupation crossings and ordinary level crossings comes into play.

 

A public right of way is very hard to shut and the sanctions the railway can put in place in the event of misuse are relatively minimal Even enforcement is hard as unless you have a vehicle license plate to go on. The law governing such crossings bases itself on the standpoint of a casual user who cannot be expected to know the specific in advance. As such the way the crossing is signed, the level of protective equipment needs to take that into account.

 

By contrast an occupation crossing exists as a private agreement between the two parties involved - and the permission to use such a crossing is contingent on them obeying the rules the railway puts in place to provide safe access. Authorised users have a legal obligation to ensure all persons they then subsequently delegate permission to use the crossing to are fully briefed on the procedures that must be followed. This automatically allows the railway (by law) to make certain assumptions and put in place rules which would not necessarily be suitable for a public crossing. Furthermore because the number of users is restricted - and the railway knows who they are - it can take steps to help the user in the way it cannot with respect to the public - such as write to the user with timetable details suggesting when access is likely to be granted and when its not. Even then if continued non-compliance is suspected the installation of a camera recording system and the threat of prosecution can work wonders.

 

Yes the outcome in a double track line could be worse - but that rather scaremongering in the sense that you are now talking about a different set of railway infrastructure with extra risks to consider. As has been explained level crossing safety is not a game of absolutes - it depends on many factors including the type of crossing the type of users, the topography of the area, the density of traffic (rail and vehicle/ pedestrian) the type signalling system installed, etc - not just how many tracks there are. To obtain a true picture of how 'safe' any one crossing is requires an analysis of all those factors as pertaining to that individual crossing. This then gives a risk factor with which you can compare that individual crossing compared to others when it comes to funding for upgrades / alternatives. Yes the increase in size / frequency of farm machinery is a factor to be considered but it is totally irrational to say that such a measure is the only one upon which expenditure decisions should rest.

 

Ultimately, yes, it would be lovely to totally remove all risk - but sorry the world is not like that and people need to get a sense of perspective. As a person (and I generalise here rather than focusing on you personally) you are still far more likely to die after being hit in a road traffic collision or from self indicted health problems than in a collision at a accommodation crossing on the type of railway featured in the RAIB report. It is perverse to demand perfect safety at occupation crossings when society at large is quite happy to take far grater risks in other areas. OK you can argue public services have a grater responsibility to ensure safety (which the railway industry does) - but at the end if the day those nearest and dearest to you are not going to be any less upset when you die - however it happens. Granted their anger levels and the desire to seek some form of retribution will vary, but that doesn't bring you back to life.

 

What it important is there is a process for safety to be periodically reviewed and recommendations made - and if the cost / benefit of making changes is acceptable (in accordance with the "As Low As Reasonably Practicable" principle - which our highest law courts agree is a perfectly acceptable approch to take). From what the RAIB has said those changes at this particular crossing are the tightening up of voice communications and box instructions - measures which are totally within accepted practices / laws under the ALARP principle.

 

We don't for example routinely fit TPWS to signals in plain areas - despite the fact that there is a very real possibility of a driver, running on continual double yellows, cancelling the AWS for the single yellow and the red, then  smashing into the back of a stationary train at high speed. If you crunch the numbers the chance of this happening could well be grater than the chances a collision at a occupation crossing, yet the ALARP factor means such a stance is perfectly acceptable. We also see shades of it in the Southerns Guard dispute - yes busy 12 car trains and crowded platforms increases the risk - yet 30 odd years of experience tells us the risk is (assuming suitable technical mitigation is in place) ALARP

Edited January 29, 2017 by phil-b259

[Grovenor]

By contrast an occupation crossing exists as a private agreement between the two parties involved -

I don't think that is usually the case, the requirement for the railway to provide an occupation or accomodation crossing would be written into the parliamentary act authorising construction of the line (in order to remove the landowners objections to the act).

Regards

[phil-b259]

I don't think that is usually the case, the requirement for the railway to provide an occupation or accomodation crossing would be written into the parliamentary act authorising construction of the line (in order to remove the landowners objections to the act).

Regards

 

Its still a 'private' agreement in the sense that the obligations to each party are limited to them and although parliament specified an occupation crossing was built, there is no reason why said crossing cannot be closed or the exact arrangements be altered by mutual consent. Level crossings featuring public rights of way on the other hand are subject to Government oversight with changes or closures being very tightly controlled - hence the need for public enquiries into closures, or the secretary of states agreement to change the level of protective equipment installed at a crossing (even if that upgrade makes it safer)

[Sidecar Racer]

http://www.wimp.com/always-look-both-ways/

[phil-b259]

http://www.wimp.com/always-look-both-ways/

 

As with the American video that has been linked to, we do appear to have a serious wrong side failure here. However without knowledge as to the country involved or the crossing equipment fitted we cannot say what went wrong or draw any conclusions that may be relevant to UK practice.

Edited January 29, 2017 by phil-b259

[Coryton]

As with the American video that has been linked to, we do appear to have a serious wrong side failure here. However without knowledge as to the country involved or the crossing equipment fitted we cannot say what went wrong or draw any conclusions that may be relevant to UK practice.

 

I can give you half of that - I'm pretty sure it's in Poland. Or at any rate the trains are Polish.

[SM42]

Definitely Poland and a nice, rather too close up of an EN57.

 

Of course it is perfectly possible that this may have been a manually operated crossing as opposed to automatic.  In my limited experience, (i.e observation of one specific incident,) the signals are not always locked with the barriers. Which is quite alarming really.

 

Andy

[Coryton]

Definitely Poland and a nice, rather too close up of an EN57.

 

Of course it is perfectly possible that this may have been a manually operated crossing as opposed to automatic.  In my limited experience, (i.e observation of one specific incident,) the signals are not always locked with the barriers. Which is quite alarming really.

 

Andy

 

Well in this case if they were linked to the signalling, the link didn't work very well.

[Ken.W]

I was wondering if that was one solution to the problem, but I assumed the risk of the driver misidentifying where he was would be too great.

 

With a farmer using a fixed phone you know exactly where they are when they say they have already seen the train pass.

That can be a very pertinent point.  Back 40 odd years ago when I had a substantial chunk of the Salisbury - Exeter line in my 'parish' we had around 80 occupation and accommodation crossings in 'our' c.60 miles of the route.  I happened to know in railway terms where they all were because I'd somehow acquired a list which gave the milepost mileage of all of them - which was more than could be said for the ex GW side of our patch.

 

As Mike has discussed regarding the number of 'crossings' in his former 60 route mile patch, by contrast I cover somewhere in the region of 550 route miles and there's drivers even at the same depot that cover considerably more. Although crossing numbers have been considerably reduced, I'd say it's virtually impossible for a driver to know every single 'crossing', other than public road crossings which have always been shown in the Sectional Appendix, and we don't even have a full list of all 'crossings'.

 

We don't for example routinely fit TPWS to signals in plain areas - despite the fact that there is a very real possibility of a driver, running on continual double yellows, cancelling the AWS for the single yellow and the red, then  smashing into the back of a stationary train at high speed.

 

The mitigation here is the Defensive Driving Policy which mandates dropping back to run on greens, to guard against canceling the AWS at continual double yellows, and then missing the single yellow that doesn't change up to double

[phil-b259]

The mitigation here is the Defensive Driving Policy which mandates dropping back to run on greens, to guard against canceling the AWS at continual double yellows, and then missing the single yellow that doesn't change up to double

 

Indeed - but this is a manual process .There is nothing to physically prevent a driver going against such a policy and smashing into a stationary train as a result is there? we simply 'trust' that the driver will not do so.

 

I guess the difference is that with regard to drivers performance on the road, we do have data logs which managers can review in a regular basis to spot poor driving techniques - but as WCR demonstrated last year even this can practice can be ignored if people want to.

Edited January 30, 2017 by phil-b259

[russ p]

Any driver can have a SPAD, no driver intends to have one but I'm afraid to say it can happen to anyone.

Touching wood it's not happened to me yet but you just never know

[uax6]

As Mike has discussed regarding the number of 'crossings' in his former 60 route mile patch, by contrast I cover somewhere in the region of 550 route miles and there's drivers even at the same depot that cover considerably more. Although crossing numbers have been considerably reduced, I'd say it's virtually impossible for a driver to know every single 'crossing', other than public road crossings which have always been shown in the Sectional Appendix, and we don't even have a full list of all 'crossings'.

 

 

 

As a signalman I have had to sit in meetings where management want to remove our box copies of the route emergency plans, which are the only things that we have that show ALL the crossings and signal and points with their 6 figure grid references and how to get to them. Why did they want to remove them? Well they are uncontrolled documents and *may* be out of date.

When I said how do I call the emergency services to a incident they backed down, so they are for reference purposes only.

And before you ask, no accommodation and footpath crossings are not shown on the box diagrams, nor is the yardage to the signals.....

 

Andy G

[roythebus]

Running at reduced speed to stay with greens instead of double yellow simply reduces line capacity. In my days at waterloo we could regularly run from Waterloo to woking on double yellows, in fact two lots of double yellows as they were short blocks. everything stopped at Woking!  

[phil-b259]

Any driver can have a SPAD, no driver intends to have one but I'm afraid to say it can happen to anyone.

Touching wood it's not happened to me yet but you just never know

 

Oh quite so, I'm sure no driver wishes to have a SPAD - but with controlled (as opposed to most automatic) signals we have a technical back up in the form of TPWPS. In other words not all signals have been assessed as carrying the same risk - with some we rely on the human element to guarantee safety (defensive driving, etc) while at others this is not enough and we provide an equipment solution. Its worth recalling that in both the Purley and Ladbroke Grove collisions the driver didn't react to the cautionary signals on the run up to the red so in the event of a queue of trains forming due to say signalling problems at a junction, the risk of a rear end collision at high speed remains.

 

Similarly at accommodation level crossing we usually rely on the human element to guarantee safety while public level crossings will have either train or signaller operated warning equipment. This is the result of weighing up the possibilities AND probabilities of something occurring to come to a conclusion about the level of risk and how much money should be spent on mitigating measures.

 

As I said earlier, safety is not absolute - the amount of risk the railway and its regulators tolerate will vary considerably depending on the factors involved. Just because something has a theoretical chance of happening which can cause loss of life doesn't automatically mean mitigation must involve technical solutions.

Edited January 31, 2017 by phil-b259