Level crossing stupidity...

[Colin_McLeod]

The letter I quoted about the motorist who complained. that it was dangerous because he couldn't see the approaching trains would seem to indicate exactly that sort of mindset, and stupidity - with the big difference that the approaching train can't stop even if it is already braking.[/i]

A train approaching an AOCL should be driven at such a speed that it can stop short of an obstruction on the crossing. The "L" in AOCL meams "locally monitored" ie monitored by the train driver rather than by a signalman elsewhere. The speed restriction board on the approach to an AOCL shows the maximum permitted speed as determined by a combination of sighting distance of the crossing and tbe stopping distance of the trains.

 

It is irrelevant whether a motorist can see the train.

 

 

Edit for typo

Edited February 4, 2018 by Colin_McLeod

[caradoc]

A train approaching an AOCL should be driven at such a speed that it can stop short of an obstruction on the crossing.

 

 

Is that strictly correct ? The train Driver's indication that the AOCL is functioning correctly is the white light displayed on approach to the crossing, and if it is the train can proceed at whatever the speed restriction over the crossing is, the train does not require to proceed at caution and stop short of an obstruction, unless the crossing lights have failed ?

 

Edited: On checking (which I should have done first !) you are correct Colin, the Driver is required to drive at such a speed that they can stop if the LC is obstructed when first sighted. Thereafter, if the LC is clear and operating correctly, they can proceed at the designated speed.

Edited February 4, 2018 by caradoc

[The Stationmaster]

A train approaching an AOCL should be driven at such a speed that it can stop short of an obstruction on the crossing. The "L" in AOCL meams "locally monitored" ie monitored by the train driver rather than by a signalman elsewhere. The speed restriction board on the approach to an AOCL shows the maximum permitted speed as determined by a combination of sighting distance of the crossing and tbe stopping distance of the trains.

 

It is irrelevant whether a motorist can see the train.

 

 

Edit for typo

 

The whole point I was making was that the ability of the motorist to see the train is irrelevant - I'm sorry if I did not make that clear.

 

The situation at any AOC(L) is that if the train is proceeding at the correct speed and the white light is flashing there's not much the train Driver can do if a vehicle then drives onto the crossing unless the maximum permitted train speed is so low as to give the train braking distance.  Most level crossing collisions occur not because the crossing is obstructed by a road vehicle when first sighted by the train Driver but because a road vehicle drives onto the crossing as a train is closely approaches the crossing or arrives at it.  Incidentally the speed at which a train is travelling towards an ABCL or AOCL relates to its ability to stop if the white light is not flashing.

Is that strictly correct ? The train Driver's indication that the AOCL is functioning correctly is the white light displayed on approach to the crossing, and if it is the train can proceed at whatever the speed restriction over the crossing is, the train does not require to proceed at caution and stop short of an obstruction, unless the crossing lights have failed ?

 

Edited: On checking (which I should have done first !) you are correct Colin, the Driver is required to drive at such a speed that they can stop if the LC is obstructed when first sighted. Thereafter, if the LC is clear and operating correctly, they can proceed at the designated speed.

 

The requirement in the Rule Book to stop if the level crossing is obstructed is only stated in the Rule Book in respect of Open Crossings, apart from any sort of obvious common sense, is stated rather differently in the case of AOCL or ABCL level crossings in that it says -

 

Section 4.1 (in respect of ABCL and AOCL crossings)

 

'On passing the speed restriction or sighting board you must make sure you can see that the crossing is clear, and the white light next to the crossing is flashing.

 

You may then:

Proceed to the. crossing at a speed which is not more than that shown on the speed restriction board or DMI.

accelerate as soon as the front of the train is on the crossing'

 

The Rule in regard to Open Crossings is rather different in that explicitly states as follows (note particularly the final the part which I have highlighted in bold - it's not in bold in the Rule Book) 

 

Section 5.1 (second para et seq) (In respect of Open Crossings)

 

On passing the combined speed and whistle board, you must make sure that you can see the crossing is clear.

 

You may then:

Proceed to the. crossing at a speed which is not more than that shown on the combine speed and whistle board or DMI or the speed displayed on your DMI

Accelerate as soon as the front of your train is on the crossing

 

You must stop before reaching the crossing if:

The crossing is obstructed

You cannot see if the crossing is clear'

 

There is therefore a substantial difference in emphasis in the Rule Book between AOCL/ABCL crossings and Open Crossings and it is of course quite logical that there should be such a difference because all else apart there are no gates, barriers or road warning lights at an Open Crossing and the rail speed will normally be very low whereas it can be (and usually is) higher at an ABCL or AOCL

Edited February 4, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[Lee]

Two killed at level crossing near Horsham.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-43097342

[Reorte]

Two killed at level crossing near Horsham.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-43097342

No information yet as to whether it belongs in this thread though.

[uax6]

Another One Nil to the train at Waterbeach tonight, 1T11 Downham Market -> Kings Cross collects a car:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-43591601

 

Andy G

[LNERGE]

Another One Nil to the train at Waterbeach tonight, 1T11 Downham Market -> Kings Cross collects a car:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-43591601

 

Andy G

Funnily enough i was, for some unknown reason, watching 1T11 on Traksy as it happened.

[beast66606]

Funnily enough i was, for some unknown reason, watching 1T11 on Traksy as it happened.

 

Line reopened now

[uax6]

I think it was slowing for a station stop at the time, hence the relatively small amount of damage to the train: 

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/train-hits-car-waterbeach-cambridgeshire-1-5457227

 

Andy G

[beast66606]

I think it was slowing for a station stop at the time, hence the relatively small amount of damage to the train: 

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/train-hits-car-waterbeach-cambridgeshire-1-5457227

 

Andy G

 

Allegedly the car driver was drunk and was seen drinking *after* the collision <shakes head> (info from someone who attended the scene officially)

[LNERGE]

Luckily it was a stopper.

[petethemole]

Allegedly the car driver was drunk and was seen drinking *after* the collision <shakes head> (info from someone who attended the scene officially)

 

Possibly deliberately, to invalidate the breath test?   

[PhilJ W]

Possibly deliberately, to invalidate the breath test?   

Several people have tried that one to no avail.

[The Stationmaster]

I think it was slowing for a station stop at the time, hence the relatively small amount of damage to the train: 

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/train-hits-car-waterbeach-cambridgeshire-1-5457227

 

Andy G

 

The same could not be said for the car it would appear - but at least it was more or less still in one piece.

[jamie92208]

Several people have tried that one to no avail.

 

Yes I believe it's called back calculation. 30 years ago we were told to seize the bottle they were drinking from, then mark the level in it and later question the suspect about their consumption. They would still have to give a breath or blood sample but the scientists could say what proportion of the over the limit sample they provided was likely to have come from the drink after the accident.   the technology may have improved these days but the methodology was proved a long time ago.

 

Jamie

[PhilJ W]

Several people have tried that one to no avail.

 

 

Yes I believe it's called back calculation. 30 years ago we were told to seize the bottle they were drinking from, then mark the level in it and later question the suspect about their consumption. They would still have to give a breath or blood sample but the scientists could say what proportion of the over the limit sample they provided was likely to have come from the drink after the accident.   the technology may have improved these days but the methodology was proved a long time ago.

 

Jamie

I know of someone who had been spotted driving erratically but before they breathalysed him he had gone inside his house so it was thrown out by the magistrates. A few days after it was thrown out he arrived home to find police officers waiting on his doorstep with a breathalyser. This was back in the 70's when police had the manpower.

[kevinlms]

I know of someone who had been spotted driving erratically but before they breathalysed him he had gone inside his house so it was thrown out by the magistrates. A few days after it was thrown out he arrived home to find police officers waiting on his doorstep with a breathalyser. This was back in the 70's when police had the manpower.

And presumably he failed? 

 

Strange about the reduction of police numbers. Here the state election, is invariably about 'law & order issues', with both major parties competing with one another for who is going to provide the most additional police.

[rue_d_etropal]

Just had an idea. In town centres they have those bollards which rise from the road surface. Fitting these, so they come up would stop any vehicle trying to get through. The results of motorists trying to do so , show that they can not outrun the rising bollard, and it results in a lot of damage to underneath of vehicle. Still some do try. If positioned correctly vehicles would not get onto track. Cost could be an issue.

Having said that, it won't be long before all vehicles on roads are eith fully driverlesss, or at least haveauto controls wich stop drivers doing  some stupid things.

 

Stopping pedestrians is another whole problem. Having said that each week I get train from local station to go to my local railway club(I no longer have a car, and buses in the evening are hopefless).I have to walk across the level crossing to get to station, and I am always a bit worried barriers will start to come down when I m half way across. I have had lights and bells go off on one occasion, and started to walk a bit faster. If the barriers are down there is a footbridge, but that has not een necessary  yet.

 

On the subject of crossing roads with lights, I used to think it was stupid not to wait, but  actually learning to look to see if road is clear is more importat, otherwise some just assume that it is OK to cross, just because lights say so. One crossing I use, the lighta turn to red before I have got to other side, and I am not slow, and I start walking as soon as light goes green. Unfortunatel a friend who used to do the maintenance n these crossings, has retired so can't ask him to check out the wiring. It would not be the first time traffic lights have been wired up incorrectly.

Edited March 30, 2018 by rue_d_etropal

[PhilJ W]

And presumably he failed? 

 

Strange about the reduction of police numbers. Here the state election, is invariably about 'law & order issues', with both major parties competing with one another for who is going to provide the most additional police.

He did indeed. Don't hold your breath re. police numbers.

[beast66606]

Yesterday I was at Watlington (Magdalen Road) photographing sand trains, as the barriers went down a a guy - who'd been snogging his girl friend for a good 15 minutes - asked how could be get to the other platform as he wanted to get the 09:01 London train - "You're on the 10:01 now as there's no way to cross now" I said. With that he walked down the platform ramp (barriers down remember), onto the track, crossed over, climbed over the barriers on the other side and onto the platform where he caught the train. I just shook my head, the "Bobby" didn't see him and the train was too far away (the only saving grace) for the driver to have seen him.

[kevinlms]

Yesterday I was at Watlington (Magdalen Road) photographing sand trains, as the barriers went down a a guy - who'd been snogging his girl friend for a good 15 minutes - asked how could be get to the other platform as he wanted to get the 09:01 London train - "You're on the 10:01 now as there's no way to cross now" I said. With that he walked down the platform ramp (barriers down remember), onto the track, crossed over, climbed over the barriers on the other side and onto the platform where he caught the train. I just shook my head, the "Bobby" didn't see him and the train was too far away (the only saving grace) for the driver to have seen him.

And he probably thinks that you are a smart a**!!!

[scouser]

And he probably thinks that you are a smart a**!!!

That's because he's an idiot.

[Titan]

Just had an idea. In town centres they have those bollards which rise from the road surface. Fitting these, so they come up would stop any vehicle trying to get through. The results of motorists trying to do so , show that they can not outrun the rising bollard, and it results in a lot of damage to underneath of vehicle. Still some do try. If positioned correctly vehicles would not get onto track. Cost could be an issue.

Having said that, it won't be long before all vehicles on roads are eith fully driverlesss, or at least haveauto controls wich stop drivers doing  some stupid things.

 

 

One of the important safety considerations that bollards might not permit is that they must not trap a car on the crossing. The Russians have a similar idea which seems very effective, but they use large spring loaded ramps. They are tall enough to at the front to stop any vehicle, usually with plenty of damage, but drive over them in the other direction and they fold down under the weight of the car allowing it to escape in an emergency.

[TerrySVR]

Perhaps as part of driving test potential drivers could have a mental capacity assessment, obviously not for existing drivers I would miss my car

[kevinlms]

One of the important safety considerations that bollards might not permit is that they must not trap a car on the crossing. The Russians have a similar idea which seems very effective, but they use large spring loaded ramps. They are tall enough to at the front to stop any vehicle, usually with plenty of damage, but drive over them in the other direction and they fold down under the weight of the car allowing it to escape in an emergency.

The Russian one has a problem. There is evidence on Youtube, where people stand on them forcing it down. One example depicts a BMW attempting to go over/around one, with people on it. At the last moment, they jump off, causing major damage!

 

Here it is. They set him up & he fell for it big time. Love the rescue attempts.