New BT police level crossing footage.

[Adrian Wintle]

Wasn't the introduction of barriers rather than gates driven as much by the need to accommodate both faster rail traffic and increasingly busy roads i.e. the closing and opening of old style gates was too slow, closing off the road for longer than seemed acceptable?

 

Gates also require staffing and signalling to deal with the potential of people being trapped between the gates. AHBs can be fully automatic, controlled by the train tripping a sensor.

 

Adrian

[Arthur]

I agree Adrian, but your points could be interpreted as being driven by cost saving and I was trying to demonstrate that there are other reasons too, which as Colin stated above, are more to do with efficiency and a changing environment.

[beast66606]

The woman has now come forward

 

 

A woman contacted transport police on Thursday, following the release of CCTV images of the incident earlier this week.

She will be speaking to BTP officers on 9 October.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Wasn't the introduction of barriers rather than gates driven as much by the need to accommodate both faster rail traffic and increasingly busy roads i.e. the closing and opening of old style gates was too slow, closing off the road for longer than seemed acceptable?

A mixture of things Arthur - reducing costs was very much in mind but equally reducing delay to road vehicle drivers was promoted as one of the advantages I seem to recall (and of course for ahb and aocls etc that is absolutely true).  Another part of it was to simplify equipment and maintenance costs where there can be very big savings - the mechanical kit, and replacing it on renewal etc is a time consuming and expensive business.

 

So overall a variety of benefits almost all of which can be measured in financial terms if someone wishes although they are not necessarily seen that way.  And although not originally foreseen - perhaps - was the increasing problem of recruiting staff as Crossing Keepers.

 

As far as road traffic is concerned it would be interesting to know the impact where a crossing has been upgraded from an ahb to a full barrier type as I suspect it could be considerable.  Moving from an ahb operating cycle of 27 seconds to a full barrier situation where the comparable road traffic delay is going to easily exceed a minute, or two, ca delay a lot more motorists.  At one CCTV crossing I regularly use you can be at a stand for 7 -10 minutes sometimes and the delay is never much less than 3 minutes.

[Dunsignalling]

A mixture of things Arthur - reducing costs was very much in mind but equally reducing delay to road vehicle drivers was promoted as one of the advantages I seem to recall (and of course for ahb and aocls etc that is absolutely true).  Another part of it was to simplify equipment and maintenance costs where there can be very big savings - the mechanical kit, and replacing it on renewal etc is a time consuming and expensive business.

 

So overall a variety of benefits almost all of which can be measured in financial terms if someone wishes although they are not necessarily seen that way.  And although not originally foreseen - perhaps - was the increasing problem of recruiting staff as Crossing Keepers.

 

As far as road traffic is concerned it would be interesting to know the impact where a crossing has been upgraded from an ahb to a full barrier type as I suspect it could be considerable.  Moving from an ahb operating cycle of 27 seconds to a full barrier situation where the comparable road traffic delay is going to easily exceed a minute, or two, ca delay a lot more motorists.  At one CCTV crossing I regularly use you can be at a stand for 7 -10 minutes sometimes and the delay is never much less than 3 minutes.

Signallers (especially those with responsibility for more than one crossing) will tend to lower barriers a bit early just in case anything else crops up demanding their attention.

 

That ensures the train driver sees only green signals. To do otherwise risks attracting the attention of Delay Attribution or their Signalling Manager whereas there is rarely any comeback from delaying road traffic (within reason).

 

John (whose box didn't have a CCTV crossing!)

[The Stationmaster]

Signallers (especially those with responsibility for more than one crossing) will tend to lower barriers a bit early just in case anything else crops up demanding their attention.

 

That ensures the train driver sees only green signals. To do otherwise risks attracting the attention of Delay Attribution or their Signalling Manager whereas there is rarely any comeback from delaying road traffic (within reason).

 

John (whose box didn't have a CCTV crossing!)

The one I'm referring to has for years (since mas) been operated by a 'gate 'box' which also remotely supervised two crossings by cctv and which slots protecting signals accordingly.  I believe it will be going onto - or already has gone onto - TVSC and it will be interesting to see if that makes a difference.  However the modus operandi in the past has always been to ensure that trains get a clear run - which is what the 'box Instructions have of course reflected in terms of starting the lights/barrier sequence when a train of which Class occupies whatever track circuit.

 

Hence with a controlled crossing you automatically get a longer sequence due to the need to clear signals which is generally avoided with an automatic crossing.

 

Incifdentally going back to the OP the crossing involved is apparently well know for user indiscipline and has been the scene of a number of near misses over the years together with various 'enforcement' sessions (and monitoring cameras).

[Ceptic]

It's the usual trend of spreading responsibility. It used to be, when the railways started in UK, that the railway company was responsible for what took place on the railway property. Tracks were completely fenced off, including gates substantial enough at the time to prevent pedestrian, vehicle and livestock access, or at least that was the principle. Over time, usually as an effort to save money, (the usual method is by reducing the number of workers), the responsibility goes elsewhere. This applies to industries/institutions other than railways, of course. This is one of the results of the ascendancy of 'greed' in business/personal behaviour. Whether the savings are worthwhile depends on which side of the fence (or crossing barrier) you find yourself, I guess.

In the  same way that some businesses 'try to get away with it', some individuals try to get away with it. Sometimes it doesn't turn out as they hoped.

Publishing the video is unlikely to reduce the number of these incidents that occur, but that can never be proved, of course.

I agree,...AHBs = Less manpower = Less on-the-spot surveillance = Less time spent travelling* (Higher train speeds) = Less expenditure = More profit,..

*Hence = More idiotic people taking risks / losing lives, trying to save a second or two travelling.

If that dopey cyclist had been presented with a three foot high, manned gate, barring the way of her progress, I reckon she would have stopped sooner than she did.

[The Stationmaster]

I agree,...AHBs = Less manpower = Less on-the-spot surveillance = Less time spent travelling* (Higher train speeds) = Less expenditure = More profit,..

*Hence = More idiotic people taking risks / losing lives, trying to save a second or two travelling.

If that dopey cyclist had been presented with a three foot high, manned gate, barring the way of her progress, I reckon she would have stopped sooner than she did.

Actually AHB =lower train speeds, the maximum permitted line speed over an AHB is 100mph.  The permitted line speed over MCB or a crossing with gates is 125 mph - so AHB crossings curtail line speeds, they do not facilitate higher speeds.  The maximum permitted speed of AOCL is even slower - at 55mph

[uax6]

But interestingly the public don't seem to understand that railway men are here to work the railway to as close as time as possible. The amonut that get fed up waiting at our (4'6" tall ) gates is amazing. Some turn round just as the train goes past (are they expecting the gates to open as soon as the last buffer is off the crossing?) while other sit and rev their engines.

 

Trying to explain that we run trains not road traffic seems lost on them. As for those who slow down to a dead crawl to go over I dispair. I always put my foot down to get off the railway as quickly as possible.

 

Talking of which I'm just off outside to close the gates.......

 

 

Andy G

[uax6]

BTW do you know which crossings have emergency phones?

 

Andy G

[jamie92208]

I once got a cab ride on a class 59 going into Drax power station.  On the surviving piece of the Hull and Barnsley fro Heck down to the power station there are several AHB crossings.  We could see three at one time and even at the relativley low speed of the loaded coal train I was surprised at how late the closing sequence was triggerred. It was in fact quite worrying to me to see cars going across the crossings just in front of us.   I'd never appreciated how it must appeaqr from the drivers viewpoint.  this aspect doesn't appear the be considered by many motorists.

 

Jamie.

[Gary H]

The woman has now come forward

Well I for one was not expecting that!

Her close call must have had quite an impact on her. (no pun intended).

Or maybe the fact that her conscience told her that it was better to come forward by her own accord rather than be apprehended!

All things aside, it will be a good outcome if the whole thing has made her a better road user and she learns from it assuming that she did intentionally run the red lights.

At least she's got a second chance.

[Catkins]

What if the car carrier that passed the stopped truck had been hit by a train?

I don't understand what you mean. The car transporter came to a stop, then went round the 'disabled' truck AFTER the barrier units and lights had returned to a safe state.

 

The first truck stopped when the crossing lights activated, but with no line on the road, it stopped and fouled the barrier arm. Once the train had gone past, the arm started to rise, but it was stopped by part of the trailer, the driver pulled forwards and in doing so, the barrier arm was snapped off it's mounting. The driver then got out and removed the arm from his truck - it was whilst this was occurring, that the car transporter arrived on the scene.

 

Or have I miss understood your comment?

[298]

What if the car carrier that passed the stopped truck had been hit by a train?

They'd be car-nage....

[47137]

The BBC have published an update here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-24473905

 

"... British Transport Police (BTP) confirmed they spoke to a 26-year-old woman from the city on Wednesday.

She was filmed cycling through the closed barrier at Waterbeach on 12 September. The woman came forward voluntarily, and BTP said they were deciding what further action to take ..."

[Colin_McLeod]

If any action is taken she could be the last person to come forward voluntarily.

[beast66606]

If any action is taken she could be the last person to come forward voluntarily.

 

Conversely we could all commit crime and then voluntarily hand ourselves in and get off with it.

[Colin_McLeod]

OK I give up. LOL

[Welly]

^^^

I think she only came forward when she recognised herself on TV!

[Colin_McLeod]

"You've been framed" might give her the £200

[47137]

Probably sounding like a total dreamer, but suppose she agreed to appear in an interview in a BTP promotional safety film to be shown in schools - could this help? Trying to think of a way to get something good out of this.

[The Stationmaster]

Conversely we could all commit crime and then voluntarily hand ourselves in and get off with it.

Exactly so - as I mentioned previously this crossing has a long history of abuse/misuse and it would seem stupid in the light of that to let her off with even a Caution.  Maybe some sort of video starring her wouldn't be a bad idea as a 'get out of jail free' card but she really does deserve to be prosecuted unless something can be made out of her crime & stupidity in that way.

[royaloak]

"You've been framed" might give her the £200

Dont be so silly!

 

 

 

 

Its £250 now!

[RJS1977]

Wasn't the whole problem that she "came forward" when she shouldn't have done? ;-)

[The Stationmaster]

Wasn't the whole problem that she "came forward" when she shouldn't have done? ;-)

It would appear that she failed to obey a traffic signal (i.e the red lights) - perhaps she now realises they also apply to cyclists, maybe?