Level crossing stupidity...

[96701]

There is an interesting level crossing sign part way down on this page:

https://thebeautyoftransport.com/2015/05/13/on-line-typeface-rail-alphabet-typeface-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-4699

 

Does anyone know what I should do if faced by a sign telling me to contact the "nearest Station Manager"?

 

(There's also a debate on whether this is in the Rail Alphabet or not. I say not.)

£50.00 fine? Not sure when that was in force. In view of the use of incorrect terms as well, I would suggest that this is a photograph of a fake sign. Though why anybody would go to so much trouble is beyond me.

[Coryton]

£50.00 fine? Not sure when that was in force. In view of the use of incorrect terms as well, I would suggest that this is a photograph of a fake sign. Though why anybody would go to so much trouble is beyond me.

 

It seems to originally be from geograph - taken at a crossing near Mellis in Suffolk.

 

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/558450

 

Most curious.

 

Edited to add:

 

Aha. Found this: 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c905140f0b602440001a3/R092007_070426_Sizewell.pdf

 

I think we can assume that the RAIB doesn't make things up, so these signs are real.

 

Odd.

 

The report does mention the lack of a phone number. I wonder who chose the wording on these signs.

 

An image search also throws up a variant saying "Notify local Railtrack Manager" which doesn't seem a lot more helpful.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Coryton

[Geoff Endacott]

Penalty £50 or death, presumably.

 

Geoff Endacott

[martin_wynne]

Cowpasture Lane, Mellis.

 

OS map shows this as a BOAT (Byway open to all traffic), but Google aerial shows it as a footpath across a ploughed field. If it is a BOAT, this gate should be wide enough for motor vehicles. Odd.

 

 

See: http://abcrailwayguide.uk/cow-pasture-lane-public-level-crossing-suffolk#.WUbDBMa1t3g

 

Crossing Data

• Name: Cow Pasture Lane
• Crossing Type: Public Footpath Crossing
• Location: Mellis CP
• Postcode: IP238EF
• Route: Anglia
• ELR: LTN1
• Distance: 90 miles 60 chains

• Individual risk rating:  C (Very High)  
• Collective risk rating:  6 (Moderate)  
• Last assessment: November 2014
• Next assessment due: February 2017
• Types of trains: Passenger & Freight
• Line speed: 100 mph
• Trains per day: 90
• Usage:
  • 11 Pedestrians or Cyclists
• Misuse history: Nil incidents in year prior to assessment date (Nov-2014), - Nil incidents since.
• Near-miss history: Nil incidents in year prior to assessment date (Nov-2014), - Nil incidents since.
• Accident history: Nil incidents in year prior to assessment date (Nov-2014), - Nil incidents since.
• Key risk factors:
  • Sun Glare
  • Frequent Trains
• Current protection arrangements:
  • Signage

________________

 

edit: Network Rail downgrade from BOAT to Bridleway. See: http://www.mellisparishcouncil.org.uk/home/anglia-level-crossing-strategy/

 

 

Martin.

Edited June 18, 2017 by martin_wynne

[Coryton]

Cowpasture Lane, Mellis.

 

OS map shows this as a BOAT (Byway open to all traffic), but Google aerial shows it as a footpath across a ploughed field. If it is a BOAT, this gate should be wide enough for motor vehicles. Odd.

 

 

See: http://abcrailwayguide.uk/cow-pasture-lane-public-level-crossing-suffolk#.WUbDBMa1t3g

 

Crossing Data

• Name: Cow Pasture Lane
• Crossing Type: Public Footpath Crossing
• Location: Mellis CP
• Postcode: IP238EF
• Route: Anglia
• ELR: LTN1
• Distance: 90 miles 60 chains

• Individual risk rating:  C (Very High)  
• Collective risk rating:  6 (Moderate)  
• Last assessment: November 2014
• Next assessment due: February 2017
• Types of trains: Passenger & Freight
• Line speed: 100 mph
• Trains per day: 90
• Usage:
  • 11 Pedestrians or Cyclists
• Misuse history: Nil incidents in year prior to assessment date (Nov-2014), - Nil incidents since.
• Near-miss history: Nil incidents in year prior to assessment date (Nov-2014), - Nil incidents since.
• Accident history: Nil incidents in year prior to assessment date (Nov-2014), - Nil incidents since.
• Key risk factors:
  • Sun Glare
  • Frequent Trains
• Current protection arrangements:
  • Signage

________________

 

edit: Network Rail downgrade from BOAT to Bridleway. See: http://www.mellisparishcouncil.org.uk/home/anglia-level-crossing-strategy/

 

 

Martin.

 

The RAIB report I referred to is very interesting.

 

It seems to be saying that - at the time of writing - the wording of a sign at a UWC should be "Notify crossing operator...." (not "nearest station manager") but that giving the phone number of the crossing operator is an optional extra(!)

 

A recommendation was that signs at UWCs should in fact have phone numbers on, which seems rather sensible to me.

[kevinlms]

The RAIB report I referred to is very interesting.

 

It seems to be saying that - at the time of writing - the wording of a sign at a UWC should be "Notify crossing operator...." (not "nearest station manager") but that giving the phone number of the crossing operator is an optional extra(!)

 

A recommendation was that signs at UWCs should in fact have phone numbers on, which seems rather sensible to me.

Indeed, how else is one meant to contact (whatever position) for information about how to cross as requested? By post or email? If there is no clear instructions, its guaranteed that people will be tempted to cross anyway.

[Grovenor]

Even with a phone number the implication is that you must have a phone. I don't believe it is a legal requirement for everyone to carry a phone. To make phoning for permission mandatory a phone must be provided.

Regards

[4069]

Not so- the requirement to phone at this crossing is only associated with unusually long or slow vehicles, whose movements are expected to be planned in advance. Making arrangements by landline phone would have been the expectation, back in the days when numbers to contact BR locally were in the phone book. The signs at the crossing dated from that era.

 

Nowadays (and bear in mind this accident and report were over ten years ago) the phone number of the supervising signal box should be provided at all user worked crossings. If you haven't got a phone with you, you should copy the number down (or commit it to memory!), go home, ring up and make the arrangements.

 

No, I don't imagine many people actually do that.

 

Phones are gradually being provided at many more crossings, but there is still some way to go.

Edited June 19, 2017 by 4069

[kevinlms]

Even with a phone number the implication is that you must have a phone. I don't believe it is a legal requirement for everyone to carry a phone. To make phoning for permission mandatory a phone must be provided.

Regards

Maybe so, but a sign with a phone number on it, is far more useful than a sign that tells you to contact 'someone', but has zero information, on how to actually contact the nominated person.

[Coryton]

Not so- the requirement to phone at this crossing is only associated with unusually long or slow vehicles, whose movements are expected to be planned in advance. Making arrangements by landline phone would have been the expectation, back in the days when numbers to contact BR locally were in the phone book. The signs at the crossing dated from that era.

 

When do you think that sign would have been put up?

[96701]

When do you think that sign would have been put up?

A long time ago. User Worked Crossings (UWCs) are often private roads with nominated users who are in regular contact with Level Crossing Managers and are in receipt of a letter asking them to confirm understanding of how their crossing should be used. A lot of them are locked with the User being the holder of the key, and not all UWCs have telephones. Some UWCs are merely a drive to a private house, some have seasonal use particularly during harvest time or holiday time and some are in frequent use to get cows from the field to the milking parlour.

 

There is no single answer to the control of risk at any level crossing.

[Coryton]

A long time ago. User Worked Crossings (UWCs) are often private roads with nominated users who are in regular contact with Level Crossing Managers and are in receipt of a letter asking them to confirm understanding of how their crossing should be used. A lot of them are locked with the User being the holder of the key, and not all UWCs have telephones. Some UWCs are merely a drive to a private house, some have seasonal use particularly during harvest time or holiday time and some are in frequent use to get cows from the field to the milking parlour.

 

The crossing in the RAIB report was a UWC, and the recommendation was for UWCs.

 

But if the sign I originally referred to is where it appears to be then it's on a public footpath, and at the time the sign was taken apparently a byway open to all traffic. So it could legitimately be used by anybody.

 

I suppose it's possible that this is actually from a UWC nearby and whoever posted it on geograph got the location wrong.

 

Or maybe somebody put up the wrong sort of sign?

 

Anyway this wording does make much more sense for a UWC though putting a phone number on the sign still seems like a good idea to me.

 

It has been quite eye-opening on this thread reading about safety issues on UWCs.

[4069]

The crossing in the RAIB report was a UWC, and the recommendation was for UWCs.

 

But if the sign I originally referred to is where it appears to be then it's on a public footpath, and at the time the sign was taken apparently a byway open to all traffic. So it could legitimately be used by anybody.

 

The track either side of the crossing may be a byway, but it is possible that the public vehicular right of way over the crossing itself has been closed- see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/431138/R052015_150528_Frampton_LC.pdf

 

In that case the sign would be appropriate for a UWC with an authorised user.

Edited June 20, 2017 by 4069

[Coryton]

The track either side of the crossing may be a byway, but it is possible that the public vehicular right of way over the crossing itself has been closed- see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/431138/R052015_150528_Frampton_LC.pdf

 

In that case the sign would be appropriate for a UWC with an authorised user.

 

It looks as the right of way (not just over the crossing) has been 'downgraded' from a byway to a footpath.

 

But I think that wouldn't have been the case when that sign was put there.

[leopardml2341]

There is no single answer to the control of risk at any level crossing.

I'm going to disagree with that; education and information!

 

Sorry that's actually 2 but you get my drift?

 

Also I realise, indeed have personal experience, that there are some that can neither be educated or informed.

 

Now, if you'd said 'elimination of risk' .......

Edited June 20, 2017 by leopardml2341

[Coryton]

I'm going to disagree with that; education and information!

 

Sorry that's actually 2 but you get my drift?

 

Also I realise, indeed have personal experience, that there are some that can neither be educated or informed.

 

Now, if you'd said 'elimination of risk' .......

 

Surely the single answer to eliminating risk at level crossings is to eliminate the crossing?

 

Easier said than done of course.

[leopardml2341]

Surely the single answer to eliminating risk at level crossings is to eliminate the crossing?

 

Easier said than done of course.

Don't forget though, that in post 1992 the words were 'control of risk'; a different scenario altogether.

 

My 'agree' is to your use of eliminate, as I alluded to in my post 1993

 

Edit:

 

Correction to quoted text

Edited June 20, 2017 by leopardml2341

[LNERGE]

A long time ago. User Worked Crossings (UWCs) are often private roads with nominated users who are in regular contact with Level Crossing Managers and are in receipt of a letter asking them to confirm understanding of how their crossing should be used. A lot of them are locked with the User being the holder of the key, and not all UWCs have telephones. Some UWCs are merely a drive to a private house, some have seasonal use particularly during harvest time or holiday time and some are in frequent use to get cows from the field to the milking parlour.

 

There is no single answer to the control of risk at any level crossing.

Have a look through a few of these..

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nicholasy/34321286896/

 

It will throw a bit more light on the subject. 

[keefer]

You could possibly date the sign by the amount of the fine - this would increase over the years just due to inflation.

At least it's not in £.s.d!

[martin_wynne]

There is no single answer to the control of risk at any level crossing.

 

The train could stop and the driver could look both ways.

[Budgie]

Today's London Evening Standard reports that there is a £2,000 reward to catch cyclist who was seconds from death after barging through level crossing.

 

See http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/2000-reward-to-catch-foolish-cyclist-who-was-seconds-from-death-after-barging-through-level-crossing-a3569766.html

[96701]

I'm going to disagree with that; education and information!

 

Sorry that's actually 2 but you get my drift?

 

Also I realise, indeed have personal experience, that there are some that can neither be educated or informed.

 

Now, if you'd said 'elimination of risk' .......

So you disagree with me that there is no single answer to reducing risk at level crossings an then disagree with your own answer. Which is why did not use the term elimination.

[Poggy1165]

Many years ago I worked in a well-known South Eastern town. Near my office was a level crossing, worked by a bloke in a hut, with an incredibly frequent train service. One every half hour in both directions, plus goods trains, engineers trains, and rush hour extras. The whole area was completely flat, and to replace the crossing with a bridge or subway would cost an absolute mint, as well as involving (I should imagine) the compulsory purchase and demolition of some very nice houses.

 

I don't suppose it's the only crossing of its kind (indeed there was another one a quarter of a mile down the road for starters). I dare say they are both automatic barrier jobs by now. Unless we strike gold deposits or a few really good oilfields, I suspect it will literally take generations before all these crossings are eliminated.

[ejstubbs]

Today's London Evening Standard reports that there is a £2,000 reward to catch cyclist who was seconds from death after barging through level crossing.

 

How much would he be likely to be fined?  He might be able to make a profit by handing himself in!  (He doesn't look like the type who'd be bothered about having a ?longer? criminal record.)

[Budgie]

Unless we strike gold deposits or a few really good oilfields, I suspect it will literally take generations before all these crossings are eliminated.

Please accept my humble apologies for my extreme bad taste.

 

As we saw and are seeing with last week's Grenfell Tower fire, if a train crashes into a bus full of children, the money to eliminate the crossings will be found immediately.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Budgie