Level crossing stupidity...

[The Stationmaster]

As I understand it these AOCL+B crossings effectively drive the barriers off the circuit that powers the lights, instead of total replacement of the existing circuitry to provide an extra circuit for the barriers, and therefore deliver almost* all the safety benefits of a barrier for much less cost than a traditional AHB conversion. 

 

*Some proving circuits are omitted. 

That is also my understanding.  The work was done fairly quickly and as this pic shows it only involved (barrier pedestals apart of course) adding a single location cupboard to the nine which already existed at the crossing so definitely not a vast amount of additional circuitry.

 

 

[brushman47544]

Can someone comment on the different costs involved in converting level crossings to full barriers as opposed to half barriers, which people (sorry - morons) can drive round. Whilst of course half barriers are better than none, surely the safety benefits of full barriers outweigh the higher costs?

[Oldddudders]

Can someone comment on the different costs involved in converting level crossings to full barriers as opposed to half barriers, which people (sorry - morons) can drive round. Whilst of course half barriers are better than none, surely the safety benefits of full barriers outweigh the higher costs?

As much as the conversion cost is the operating cost. AHBs and AOC(L)s are only a burden on the signalling staff when there is a fault. Full barriers can only be provided where supervision is available, either locally from the adjacent signalbox, or by CCTV. While the most is done to minimise the level of human intervention necessary on full barriers, there is a definite requirement upon a signaller's vigilance each time they are lowered, and that is a measurable part of his workload - he cannot control an infinite number of such installations.

[Edwin_m]

The full barrier crossings are interlocked with the signals so if the train is to have a clear run through they have to be closed (and the operator work a control to confirm it is clear of obstruction) well before it arrives.  Hence the road closure times are a lot longer than with a half barrier which isn't so interlocked and just closes when the train approaches.  Full barrier crossings therefore mean more inconvenience to road users.

 

Recently NR has started installing crossings with radar and laser obstacle detection.  In theory these remove the need for a human operator to supervise every cycle, though in practice they don't seem to be working too well yet, especially in snowy weather.  For the obstacle detection to serve any useful purpose they must also be interlocked with the signals and therefore also have longer road closure times than automatic half barriers. 

[LNERGE]

A level crossing "disaster" in Mexico..

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22015126

[Budgie]

A level crossing "disaster" in Mexico..

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22015126

 

Cerveza galore 

[Andy1963]

In 2008, I was stuck at a crossing south of Ely where the barriers were stuck down and the lights flashing. There was a south bound train stopped a few hundred yards up the line towards Ely. I couldn't tell if the barrier was down because the train was close and had broken down, or if the train had stopped and the barrier was down because of a signalling failure. From the side I was stuck, the view of north bound trains was very restricted. After a few minutes, cars from both directions started going around the half barrier and across the line. Concerned at the risk of north bound trains still running, I went and used the phone to the signal box. The signal man was not at all helpful, told me there was a fault and I would have to find an alternative route. I pointed out that people were crossing the line, and if north bound trains were still running, there was a strong possibility of an accident. With this, he said they would control it from there. I have no idea what he meant by that, whether he was going to stop north bound trains or send someone to the crossing, I don't know. As I started walking back to my car, a driver of an oil tanker waiting the other side came across the rails and asked me what they had said. I told the tanker driver exactly what was said, to which he replied, probably too dangerous to cross then. I was dumb struck, a driver of an oil tanker was even considering manoeuvring around the half barriers. I turned around a drove around via Ely adding about 15 miles to my journey. There was no accident, but I know I did the right thing. I would never cross when the lights are flashing and the barrier down, under any circumstances.

 

[beast66606]

There was no accident, but I know I did the right thing. I would never cross when the lights are flashing and the barrier down, under any circumstances.

 

Exactly so.

 

(this may be resolved now) On several different occasions I've seen crossings on the Felixstowe line give false indications, dropping to indicate a train coming when I can still see the previous train going away - and it's single track, eventually they rise again. The temptation to weave must slowly grow each time a motorist gets stopped for the Ghost train and the day they do, it won't be a Ghost train, they will be the Ghost.

[Edwin_m]

They would have the facility to replace the signal on the approach side of the crossing to danger even if it normally works automatically.  I guess the standard procedure would be to replace this to danger and keep it so until someone could get to the crossing and work it via the local controls.  It would probably still be necessary to stop each train at the approach signal to get confirmation from the person at the crossing that the barriers are down. 

[EddieB]

Shouldn't the signalman have called for assistance from the traffic police?  After all, jumping the barriers is still a dangerous and criminal act.  They would attend a similar incident, where the safety of the public is at ris, elsewhere on the highway.

 

Just thankful that there were no accidents.

[The Stationmaster]

Shouldn't the signalman have called for assistance from the traffic police?  After all, jumping the barriers is still a dangerous and criminal act.  They would attend a similar incident, where the safety of the public is at ris, elsewhere on the highway.

 

Just thankful that there were no accidents.

If the barriers have failed down and/or the red flashing lights are operating the only person who can legally signal a motorist past those lights etc is a uniformed police officer.  Anyone who passes the lights except on the authority of a uniformed police officer is committing an offence (and might find themselves photographed by a member of RMweb as several of us carry cameras).

[PaulRhB]

If the barriers have failed down and/or the red flashing lights are operating the only person who can legally signal a motorist past those lights etc is a uniformed police officer. Anyone who passes the lights except on the authority of a uniformed police officer is committing an offence (and might find themselves photographed by a member of RMweb as several of us carry cameras).

Sorry but even the Police can't now pass flashing red lights, the law and rules have recently changed.

 

NO-ONE can authorise you to pass flashing reds, if the S&T attend they can extinguish the lights if they stick on due to the failure.

If the barriers are taken on local the Signaller cautions the train to obey the attendant at the crossing and then alerts the attendant in sufficient time to lower the barriers to minimise delay to the train. The attendant may have to stop the train and red flags or lights are displayed on the approach to do this. The train can only pass once the attendant flags it across. If the crossing and its signals are controlled by a crossing keeper then they authorise the driver as they control the protecting signals immediately protecting the crossing and only they can do it once the barriers are down.

Edited April 4, 2013 by PaulRhB

[PaulRhB]

 

Shouldn't the signalman have called for assistance from the traffic police?

The Signaller or crossing keeper would phone the BTP through the railway switchboard as the crossing itself is part of the railway, BTP may ask local police to attend if they have no resources.

[PaulRhB]

told me there was a fault and I would have to find an alternative route.

I'm afraid that's all he's allowed to say in the rules and would face action if he said anything different and there was an incident.

 

there was a strong possibility of an accident. With this, he said they would control it from there. I have no idea what he meant by that,

The signalman would stop trains at protecting signals and caution the trains to make sure the crossing was clear and safe to cross before doing so, this is to allow for and prevent a collision due to weaving.

Sorry but legal reasons mean if they say more then they may land NR and themselves in court if someone does drive out in front at the last second.

 

Regs 3.5 & 3.6 pages 15-17 on this rule book module cover the Signallers actions and caution

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Book/Rule%20Book%20Modules/TS%20-%20Train%20Signalling/GERT8000-TS9%20Iss%202.pdf

Edited April 4, 2013 by PaulRhB

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Once on a single-track freight only line at an ungated crossing, the lights continued to flash red after a train had passed. Presumably the treddels or whatever stuck as the line was rarely used. I was signalled to drive over the crossing, as were others, by a member of railway staff (presumably NR). So did I technically commit an offence?

[phil-b259]

Once on a single-track freight only line at an ungated crossing, the lights continued to flash red after a train had passed. Presumably the treddels or whatever stuck as the line was rarely used. I was signalled to drive over the crossing, as were others, by a member of railway staff (presumably NR). So did I technically commit an offence?

Technically yes - and the NR staff were guilty of breaking their rules too. Its always difficult when staff on the ground are put in this situation as on the one hand you probably (assuming you are a MOM / S&T person / signalman) have a very good idea as to whether it is safe for members of the public to cross yet are forbidden from providing such advice. This frequently results in anger and abuse being directed at the staff from the road user who - perhaps not unreasonably - assumes railway staff should be able to provide said information and are being deliberately unhelpful by not providing it.

 

Mind you I can also see why we have to behave like this though because given the stupidity of the general public, if a motorist gets waved across at one crossing they may well decide that the next crossing they are delayed at has failed in some way and it is perfectly safe to jump the lights / go round the barriers, etc. at that one too with potentially horrendous results for themselves and any train that they may collide with. Often

 

(Oh and remember if the crossing is fitted with red light cameras you would still be prosecuted EVEN if you were waved across. As was mentioned earlier 'Wig Wag' lights - including those found at airfields, lift bridges, etc. - are treated differently to standard road traffic lights and absolutely NOBODY can authorise you to pass them when lit.

Edited April 5, 2013 by phil-b259

[Glorious NSE]

They would have the facility to replace the signal on the approach side of the crossing to danger even if it normally works automatically.  I guess the standard procedure would be to replace this to danger and keep it so until someone could get to the crossing and work it via the local controls.  It would probably still be necessary to stop each train at the approach signal to get confirmation from the person at the crossing that the barriers are down. 

 

If the train has passed the protecting signal when it fails though won't it lock the route, preventing the signaller from resetting it - if it's AHB the protecting signal isn't neccesarily right next to it?

[Neil]

Exactly so.

 

(this may be resolved now) On several different occasions I've seen crossings on the Felixstowe line give false indications, dropping to indicate a train coming when I can still see the previous train going away - and it's single track, eventually they rise again. The temptation to weave must slowly grow each time a motorist gets stopped for the Ghost train and the day they do, it won't be a Ghost train, they will be the Ghost.

 

Would this be the crossing repeatedly cycling through its operating pattern, or somehow operating the once but significantly delayed? I believe that most 'crossing wasn't working' incidents prove to have been motorist rather than equipment error; just wondered if once in a while it's possible to get systems failure that outfoxes any built in fail-safes?

Edited April 5, 2013 by Neil

[PaulRhB]

If the train has passed the protecting signal when it fails though won't it lock the route preventing the signaller from resetting it - if it's AHB the protecting signal isn't neccesarily right next to it?

If it fails after the train has passed the protecting signal then there is no interlock stopping you from resetting the signal as technically you clear the signal once you have given the caution, so the Signaller maintains the protecting signals manually but will take them off auto or will put the signal behind back before clearing the protecting one to maintain safety. There is a risk that it can be a fair few minutes before the train passes though which is why assuming trains are cautioned is very dangerous as it might have failed as the train passed a signal 5 miles away. With GSMR coming into use the Signaller will have the ability to contact a driver in section BUT the crossing usually takes a couple of minutes to complete its failure detection cycle before it alarms in the box.

As barrier units work hydraulically they can 'hunt' if they get a leak or faulty micro switch and they will start the sequence then cancel as the arm bounces back up. This is doesn't show at the Signalbox and is picked up on the S&T maintenance cycle. These units lift heavy barriers many times a day in all weathers and get bashed and leaned on by the public so minor malfunctions would cause havoc if trains were cautioned for every one.

I've attended crossings that have failed many times and sometimes found people waving others across with no contact with the box. Reporting them means having a camera and the possibility of aggression so we inform the Police but tend avoid direct action as we need to make the crossing safe for all the others waiting. I have reprimanded and explained just how dangerous it is and been told to F off, you report the plate but how do you make it stick without good descriptions? Police who've attended have only ever issued a warning so its not worth getting punched and mucking up everyone else in the queues day?

Safest thing in all cases is to ring the Signalbox to see if the attendant is likely to be near and report any idiots crossing, if its not going to be quick find an alternative route or have a sandwich. By all means try to stop them going past barriers but don't risk stopping them on the crossing or getting hit by their car yourself. If you have a camera and can get a surreptitious photo as they cross with the plate showing fine but again don't risk them stopping to have a go at you as they may stop foul of the track or attack you direct.

Signallers do appreciate the info but may be under stress due to other things on their patch or lots of other calls so please understand if they seem abrupt.

Edited April 5, 2013 by PaulRhB

[beast66606]

Would this be the crossing repeatedly cycling through its operating pattern, or somehow operating the once but significantly delayed? I believe that most 'crossing wasn't working' incidents prove to have been motorist rather than equipment error; just wondered if once in a while it's possible to get systems failure that outfoxes any built in fail-safes?

 

 

No, the crossing worked correctly for the train and then, a couple of minutes after the "train cycle" it went through the cycle again - probably a fault with a track circuit somewhere.

[Neil]

Curiosity satisfied; thank you.

[PaulRhB]

- probably a fault with a track circuit somewhere.

Das is right that sounds highly likely, or if its a lightly used line the last wagon axle may have disappeared momentarily on the circuit after the crossing on rusty rail and restarted the sequence of the failsafe which cylced and cleared. Treadle faults generally keep the lights going until they sort themselves out (slow to raise), or get fixed so don't go off by themselves.

You do get occasional wrong side failures but AHB's tend to have treadles and track circuits interlocked to bring the barriers down regardless so it really needs extreme bad luck in two separate systems failing wrongside simultaneously, (virtually impossible), or human error to cause it. I've seen a wrongside track fail but the AHB's worked fine and with treadles there are triggers and emergency or crash treadles so both those would need to be missed by all the wheels not to bring the barriers down.

[ForestPines]

The AHB that always scared me, when I used it regularly, was Great Coates crossing near Grimsby.  Most evenings at about 1710 there will be a queue of road traffic backed up across the crossing, which I was often stuck in, and I would regularly see people creeping forward and stopping on the crossing, with their exit blocked.  There were two trains scheduled around that time of day, one in each direction, and frankly it's amazing that there has never been a serious incident there as far as I'm aware.

 

Incidentally, that AHB was quite an early installation, and I suspect that the traffic patterns have changed somewhat in the intervening years.  I assume installation of an AHB at a crossing which normally sees queuing road traffic would normally not be allowed.

[The Stationmaster]

The AHB that always scared me, when I used it regularly, was Great Coates crossing near Grimsby.  Most evenings at about 1710 there will be a queue of road traffic backed up across the crossing, which I was often stuck in, and I would regularly see people creeping forward and stopping on the crossing, with their exit blocked.  There were two trains scheduled around that time of day, one in each direction, and frankly it's amazing that there has never been a serious incident there as far as I'm aware.

 

Incidentally, that AHB was quite an early installation, and I suspect that the traffic patterns have changed somewhat in the intervening years.  I assume installation of an AHB at a crossing which normally sees queuing road traffic would normally not be allowed.

Well basically the queuing is what isn't allowed - the crossing should have yellow box markings (not that a lot pf motorists seem to understand them!).

 

But in modern replacements situations you are correct - the risk of road traffic blocking back is taken into account.  However evan if, say, a crossing with full barriers and CCTV supervision is installed that still doesn't always stop the road traffic blocking back onto the crossing - it just removes (or should remove) the potential for a train to collide with the road vehicles.

[Coach bogie]

Luckily we still have level crossing gates in the North East in some places (though no doubt not for long). No chance of nipping around these.

 

Mike Wiltshire