Railway level crossings

modsandmockers

Every now and again, I get a bee in my bonnet about some issue or other, and I have recently been enjoying a discussion on this forum about whether or not it is reasonable for cyclists to expect to be allowed to continue with their historic rights to unencumbered access to the public highway when every other group of highway users is extremely tightly regulated, and at considerable cost to themselves.

Near where I live, there is a taxpayer-subsidised railway branch line which passes through several villages on its route from one major town to another. It mostly consists of an occasional single diesel-powered railway coach which trundles across the countryside at a very leisurely pace, with never more than a handful of passengers, except at commuter times.

Each village on its route has a train station which is immediately adjacent to the village High Street’s railway level crossing, and every train stops at every station. I recently stood on the platform at one of the village stations, and I watched my train pull into the station previous to mine and come to a halt in order to drop off and pick up probably no passengers at all. But in the meantime, the road next to where I was standing had been closed by the automated level crossing gates, and a large number of road users, including cyclists, had to stop for many minutes in order to wait for the single train carriage, probably carrying very few passengers, to get its act together and exercise its historic right to be allowed to take priority over the otherwise free access to the public highway.

There are regular reports of fatalities on unmanned level crossings because road users fail to respect the idea that they should have to stand in a stationary queue of road traffic for many minutes at a time, whilst the next scheduled train is stationary at a previous station somewhere down the line.

Modern trains, especially single-coaches, are no less able to stop at a level-crossing than a lorry of a similar size. In fact, since many lorries are not particularly well-maintained, it might well be true that trains are better able to stop.

IMHO, the reason why rural railway branch lines are allowed to continue to shut down the highway purely to suit their own convenience is a historical accident which is in urgent need of review. What would be wrong with the idea that it should be the train carriage which should be required to stop at a level crossing, and wait until its path is clear?

Obviously, none of this applies to existing high-speed mainline rail services, but I very much doubt whether the plans for HS2 include any kind of level crossing.

theEnd

You need a hobby/job.

timbo58

Depending on the type of train, a train will always have a far greater braking distance than a lorry - an HST type for example takes a mile to stop, it cannot possibly see a mile ahead however.

However this sort of 'delay' to other road users usually means an underpass or over bridge is built.
Traffic through LCs is monitored (it has to be for safety in any case) therefore if they are THAT busy with road users a bridge should be built.

There are many level crossings both manned and unmanned on intercity (high speed) routes.

Only a special sort of idiot thinks it's worth risking their lives with a 200+ tonne train that takes the best part of a mile to stop.

marleyboy

Unlike traffic on a road, trains have strict timelines and have to share the lines with other strict timelines of other trains, they cannot pull off a line to allow another train to overtake nor can they simply stop whenever it pleases them, delayed trains can and do cause chaos on the railway network, particularly when taking railway junctions into account.

Throbbe

Safety reasons aside there are two other significant factors:

• Inertia - it uses far less energy to stop roadgoing vehicles and get them back up to speed again than for a train, which may take many miles to get up to speed
• Uncertainty of timetable - trains generally travel within a fairly short 'window' of time which allows for tight scheduling. Introduce uncertainty and you have to leave much bigger gaps between trains, reducing capacity on an already crowded network, as well as reducing reliability for passengers.

I take your point that it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to prevent the barriers coming down when the train is stopping at a station immediately adjacent to the crossing.

wealdroam

modsandmockers wrote: »

IMHO, the reason why rural railway branch lines are allowed to continue to shut down the highway purely to suit their own convenience is a historical accident which is in urgent need of review.

What is this urgency you speak of?

modsandmockers

None of the references to the stopping distances of high speed trains have any relevance to the stopping ability of a single carriage which is, in any case, about to stop at the station which is immediately adjacent to the village level crossing. If the frequency of trains is roughly one every hour or two, then the issue of backing up a queue of trains is hardly relevant, whereas the queue of road users occurs every time.

The urgency is to do with the fact that there are several fatalities every year because of this totally illogical idea that large numbers of highway users are routinely required to wait for many minutes at a time because there is a stationary train carriage a mile or two away!

cookie365

modsandmockers wrote: »

None of the references to the stopping distances of high speed trains have any relevance to the stopping ability of a single carriage which is, in any case, about to stop at the station which is immediately adjacent to the village level crossing. If the frequency of trains is roughly one every hour or two, then the issue of backing up a queue of trains is hardly relevant, whereas the queue of road users occurs every time.

The urgency is to do with the fact that there are several fatalities every year because of this totally illogical idea that large numbers of highway users are routinely required to wait for many minutes at a time because there is a stationary train carriage a mile or two away!

If this train can stop as instantly as you claim, how come there are fatalities?

wealdroam

modsandmockers wrote: »

The urgency is to do with the fact that there are several fatalities every year because of this totally illogical idea that large numbers of highway users are routinely required to wait for many minutes at a time because there is a stationary train carriage a mile or two away!

You seem to be suggesting that vehicle drivers are ignoring signs to stop.

Not sure how the consequences of that are anyone's fault but their own.

An alternative solution might be to close the road permanently.
Would certainly avoid the fatalities.

ChumpusRex

modsandmockers wrote: »

None of the references to the stopping distances of high speed trains have any relevance to the stopping ability of a single carriage which is, in any case, about to stop at the station which is immediately adjacent to the village level crossing. If the frequency of trains is roughly one every hour or two, then the issue of backing up a queue of trains is hardly relevant, whereas the queue of road users occurs every time.

It is precisely because of the issue of fatalities that level crossings are set up the way they are.

The stopping distance of the heaviest train allowed on that line, at the speed limit is calculated, and this is used to map an exclusion zone around the crossing. If any train is in the exclusion zone, the level crossing closes and stays closed.

This is simple, reliable and fail-safe. However, when placed next to stations, where train speed is much lower than the speed limit, it can cause major delays.

Network rail have been under huge pressure to reduce level crossing incidents. They have responded by closing a lot of level crossings, resulting in permanent closure of the roads.

modsandmockers

cookie365 wrote: »

If this train can stop as instantly as you claim, how come there are fatalities?

No vehicle can stop instantly, but it is only train drivers who can approach a junction at full speed and without any concern for the possibility that there may be something in their way.

On rural branch lines, with only occasional trains, I don't really understand why the train should not be required to stop just before the level crossing, and wait until the automatic gates have made it safe for the train to proceed.

wealdroam wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting that vehicle drivers are ignoring signs to stop.

Not sure how the consequences of that are anyone's fault but their own.

An alternative solution might be to close the road permanently.
Would certainly avoid the fatalities.

Your argument is similar to the one which says that cyclists have only themselves to blame when they get run over by a left-turning truck.

Network Rail hates level crossings as much as anyone else, but it does not seem to have occurred to them that, on rural branch lines, lives would be saved if the train was required to give way to the road user.

Fatalities are almost unheard of on mainline level crossings.