Railway level crossings

modsandmockers

ChumpusRex wrote: »

This is simple, reliable and fail-safe

I disagree - people still die!

dzug1

modsandmockers wrote: »

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 any main road drivers do precisely that

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.

There are lines where this happens. It makes the train journey even slower and less attractive to those who don't have to use it.

modsandmockers

ChumpusRex wrote: »

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.

I apologise for the curtness of my earlier reply.

But why do Network Rail have the power to permanently close roads?

Would it not be better to switch the priorities, so that rail users and road users can both travel in safety?

timbo58

modsandmockers wrote: »

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.

.

Hilarious.

Train drivers are constantly aware there may be something in their way, the difference is it takes so much distance for a train to stop they will almost certainly hit whatever they see no matter how fast they hit the emergency brake.
Ask a driver who's had a suicide -many never return to the cab, it ruins their careers, drivers (and guards) have to know every junction, every loop, every station intimately, they are probably far better trained than any advanced road user.

If you want trains to be driven with a view to them being able to stop safely within their visions distance at all times we'll soon be back in the 1880s as depending on the number of carriages/loading/freight etc as I have mentioned earlier it can take a mile to stop, to lower this distance you have to lower the top speed of the line exponentially, rendering it useless as a transport means.

That doesn't mean the poor sod at the pointy end of the train doesn't have a care in the world as he hurtles towards an idiot who doesn't want to wait another 5 minutes for the LC gates, far from it, he has more to lose than anyone involved.

Many thousands more pedestrians die at the hands of car drivers every year (you can check the stats if you wish), by your argument we should make anywhere a group of more than a few pedestrians are delayed by road traffic 'pedestrian only', so thats all town centres now 'walkers only'...where do we go from there?

modsandmockers

dzug1 wrote: »

There are lines where this happens. It makes the train journey even slower and less attractive to those who don't have to use it.

And probably the only reason why those lines continue to exist is because they are heavily subsidised by the tax-payer.

wealdroam

modsandmockers wrote: »

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.

Well I can almost understand your logic, but isn't there a big red flashing light at all level crossings?

Somewhat different to left turning trucks, isn't it?

modsandmockers wrote: »

Fatalities are almost unheard of on mainline level crossings.

Would be nice to see some statistics to back that statement up.


Fatalities due to level crossing misuse are almost unheard of at any level crossing.

The Office of Rail Regulation has published some statistics that show that the number of fatalities is quite small... although of course I share your view that any fatalities is too many.

Interesting to note that 800-odd level crossings have been closed recently.

modsandmockers wrote: »

...why do Network Rail have the power to permanently close roads?

Network Rail do not have that authority.

Your elected representatives in local and national government* do have that authority and when appropriate justifications are presented to them, they do the right thing.



*maybe with the help of the courts.

dzug1

modsandmockers wrote: »

I apologise for the curtness of my earlier reply.

But why do Network Rail have the power to permanently close roads?

?

I'm sure they don't where a public road is concerned. They have the power to apply to the relevant authority for permission to do so

modsandmockers

timbo58 wrote: »

Hilarious.

Train drivers are constantly aware there may be something in their way, the difference is it takes so much distance for a train to stop they will almost certainly hit whatever they see no matter how fast they hit the emergency brake.
Ask a driver who's had a suicide -many never return to the cab, it ruins their careers, drivers (and guards) have to know every junction, every loop, every station intimately, they are probably far better trained than any advanced road user.

If you want trains to be driven with a view to them being able to stop safely within their visions distance at all times we'll soon be back in the 1880s as depending on the number of carriages/loading/freight etc as I have mentioned earlier it can take a mile to stop, to lower this distance you have to lower the top speed of the line exponentially, rendering it useless as a transport means.

That doesn't mean the poor sod at the pointy end of the train doesn't have a care in the world as he hurtles towards an idiot who doesn't want to wait another 5 minutes for the LC gates, far from it, he has more to lose than anyone involved.

Many thousands more pedestrians die at the hands of car drivers every year (you can check the stats if you wish), by your argument we should make anywhere a group of more than a few pedestrians are delayed by road traffic 'pedestrian only', so thats all town centres now 'walkers only'...where do we go from there?

Timbo - you make perfect sense, and I agree with you that train drivers are much better trained than road users.

But the fact remains that the train drivers's greatest imperative is to keep to the timetable, confident in the knowledge that if he hits somebody in his path, then he will never be held responsible.

Level crossings and station stops are entirely predictable, and should present no problem at all to any part of the railway planning system, especially on lightly used rural branch lines.

timbo58

Sorry, but thats crapola, a Driver will always be responsible should they hit anything, despite the fact they have almost no chance of avoiding it (trains can't suddenly change directions due to the rails just in case anyone wonders why not?).

The drivers (and all other staffs) greatest imperative will be safety, despite the pressures from the privatised companies to the timetable etc.
LCs are not at all 'predictable' take Ufton Nervert -entirely predictable IF there isn't a suicidal bloke who's left his car on it than then derails your train, kills the driver and 6 passengers and traumatises hundreds more.

However that is the 'LC in the middle of nowhere' only lightly used and controlled by CCTV, it didn't help even then.

I do take you point about lightly used lines but can honestly say the railway as a whole monitors the demands for road users and rail traffic over every place where the 2 could come into contact -if there was constant significant delay to either from the other party, then something would be done about it (i.e. tunnel/bridge etc).
There are many branch lines that look to most users 'lightly used by 1 car trains' however the public don't see the huge freight trains that use these later at night, the high speed traffic that uses it when diverted due to engineering works etc.

I am often delayed at Brockenhurst which is an exceptionally busy LC, however on reflection delays to road users are more significant in this area from animals than trains, they haven't stopped them wandering freely in the past 200 years and I doubt they will anytime soon.

Strider590

There's a hint of "I have a car, i'm more important" to this thread.