Railway level crossings

Cycrow

Strider590 wrote: »

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

seems like a pattern is emerging

ChumpusRex

modsandmockers wrote: »

I disagree - people still die!

There are asymmetric costs. A train may take several hundred yards to stop, and several minutes to accelerate again.

Stopping a train, for any reason, can result in serious delays, because it takes so long to regain the lost speed. More importantly, because of railway scheduling, these delays will propagate throughout the rail network.

On the other hand, the cost of stopping a road vehicle is minimal, and the cost of lost time is also small, due to the faster acceleration.

That is the reason that priorities are as they are.

Where level crossing accidents have occurred, in over 95% of cases, it is because motorists either carelessly or deliberately drive through the crossing during a time of danger (i.e. lights flashing and barriers down - or at an unmanned crossing, by failing to request permission to cross) - or pedestrians have climbed over barriers or failed to stop, look and listen at unmanned crossings.

peachyprice

modsandmockers wrote: »

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.

How does that work then?

The automated barrier is linked to the signals on the track, approaching train triggers the lights and barrier when it passes a certain point on the track

How will the barrier to stop the train proceeding know when there is no more traffic coming without traffic lights to stop cars?

Rolandtheroadie

modsandmockers wrote: »

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.

When planning, I'd imagine they would have said "That level crossings a bit close to the station, what if the train overshoots it's stop?"
Simple. Make sure the road is shut when a train is on approach, just incase it overshoots it's stop.

Marco_Panettone

Strider590 wrote: »

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

There's much more than a hint of "I'm fishing for reactions from idiotic statements that can be taken apart by pretty much everyone and even I know to be stupid".


Like most posts from this user.

mgdavid

I think the OP should do a lot of field research into different scenarios at these crossings. Hopefully the issue would sooner or later solve itself

jbuchanangb

Today I sat at the gates at Cheshunt Station LC while FOUR trains went by. I'd rather wait than be hit by the Stansted Express, thank you.

In Billericay, Public Footpath No. 7, which crosses the line by a pedestrian level crossing is currently closed while Network Rail install a footbridge.

Excellent. This will make the walking route much safer for every one.

On the rural line referred to by the OP, trains are so infrequent that motorists are not held up very often, so what's the problem?

esuhl

scotsman4th wrote: »

When planning, I'd imagine they would have said "That level crossings a bit close to the station, what if the train overshoots it's stop?"
Simple. Make sure the road is shut when a train is on approach, just incase it overshoots it's stop.

There's a level-crossing across a 4-lane dual carriageway where I went to school. The station is immediately before the crossing, but the barriers only come down after the train stops at the station (for trains travelling in that direction).

One day, due to "leaves on the line", the brakes failed, the emergency sand/grit release made little difference, and the train shot through the station, across four lanes of traffic, and came to a stop further up the line. I don't know how we missed hitting any cars. (The facial expressions of the Mercedes driver we narrowly missed were priceless.)

Anyway, it seems perfectly reasonable to lower the barriers prematurely to prevent similar accidents occurring in future. The train must have travelled about two miles with its brakes on. The OP's idea that trains can always stop as quickly as lorries is as ludicrous as everything else he says.

modsandmockers

ChumpusRex - 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.

I understand what you say - my point is that on a lightly-used branch line, I don’t understand why it is regarded as impossible to consider the possibility that a single coach with very few passengers should be able to make a planned stop at a level crossing which is adjacent to a planned station stop as an alternative to holding up dozens of road-users.

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

I can only guess that the reason for so many closures is to try to reduce the number of fatalities. But maybe some of those closures would have been made unnecessary simply by reversing the traffic priorities

ChumpusRex - Where level crossing accidents have occurred, in over 95% of cases, it is because motorists either carelessly or deliberately drive through the crossing during a time of danger (i.e. lights flashing and barriers down - or at an unmanned crossing, by failing to request permission to cross) - or pedestrians have climbed over barriers or failed to stop, look and listen at unmanned crossings.

There is no doubt that level crossing fatalities are almost always the fault of the deceased. That’s because road users are generally poorly trained and disciplined. Railway staff, on the other hand, undergo regular training and are tightly regulated, and therefore it should not be unreasonable on lightly-used branch lines for the railway to accept the responsibility for ensuring the safety of road-users on these rarely-used level crossings

PeachyPrice - The automated barrier is linked to the signals on the track, approaching train triggers the lights and barrier when it passes a certain point on the track

How will the barrier to stop the train proceeding know when there is no more traffic coming without traffic lights to stop cars?

Peachy - I would suspect that the guys who designed the automatic barriers in the first place would have little difficulty in swapping the priorities

Scotsman4th - When planning, I'd imagine they would have said "That level crossings a bit close to the station, what if the train overshoots it's stop?"
Simple. Make sure the road is shut when a train is on approach, just incase it overshoots it's stop

The train is far less likely to overshoot it’s stop than a road-user is likely to ignore the stop signals on the road. I have no evidence to support my belief that most people who die on rarely-used rural crossings are people who live locally, and habitually ignore the stop signals until one day they get unlucky.

jbuchanangb - On the rural line referred to by the OP, trains are so infrequent that motorists are not held up very often, so what's the problem?

The opposite is also true - the single carriage trains are usually carrying very few passengers, and the train would be delayed for a shorter time than the dozens of road users who regularly have to wait for many minutes. The frequency of the event is hardly relevant - the problem is that road users can and do ignore the signals, whereas train drivers know better.

esuhl - There's a level-crossing across a 4-lane dual carriageway where I went to school. The station is immediately before the crossing, but the barriers only come down after the train stops at the station (for trains travelling in that direction).

I find that hard to believe - check out ChumpusRex’s comment at the top of this post.

One day, due to "leaves on the line", the brakes failed, the emergency sand/grit release made little difference, and the train shot through the station, across four lanes of traffic, and came to a stop further up the line. I don't know how we missed hitting any cars. (The facial expressions of the Mercedes driver we narrowly missed were priceless.)

For every near-miss like that one, there are probably dozens of near-misses due to road-users choosing to ignore the stop signals.

Anyway, it seems perfectly reasonable to lower the barriers prematurely to prevent similar accidents occurring in future. The train must have travelled about two miles with its brakes on. The OP's idea that trains can always stop as quickly as lorries is as ludicrous as everything else he says.

The difference between stopping a train and stopping a lorry is that train stops can be planned in advance, and that is why they are potentially much more reliable than truck stops.

I think its worth pointing out that I have no expectation at all that anything is likely to change in regards to rural level crossings - I just have a questioning sort of a mind, and enjoy exposing my ideas to public scrutiny. Call me a troll if you like, but please don't use that term simply because you disagree with me.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

esuhl - There's a level-crossing across a 4-lane dual carriageway where I went to school. The station is immediately before the crossing, but the barriers only come down after the train stops at the station (for trains travelling in that direction).

I find that hard to believe - check out ChumpusRex’s comment at the top of this post.

I find you hard to believe. British Rail (or Railtrack or Network Rail -- whoever it was back then) tried to deny the incident, but fortunately it was a London-bound commuter train with journalists on their way to work... so it was reported in the main news channels. I'm sure you'd love to spend a few hours trying to find the reports in the archives. Off you go.

If you don't believe me, check out my comments above. Just re-read them until it sinks in.

modsandmockers wrote: »

One day, due to "leaves on the line", the brakes failed, the emergency sand/grit release made little difference, and the train shot through the station, across four lanes of traffic, and came to a stop further up the line. I don't know how we missed hitting any cars. (The facial expressions of the Mercedes driver we narrowly missed were priceless.)

For every near-miss like that one, there are probably dozens of near-misses due to road-users choosing to ignore the stop signals.

Ha ha!!! Not at this crossing -- as I said it's across a four-lane dual-carriageway and obviously has pretty large barriers to stop lunatic drivers from ignoring the signals!

modsandmockers wrote: »

Anyway, it seems perfectly reasonable to lower the barriers prematurely to prevent similar accidents occurring in future. The train must have travelled about two miles with its brakes on. The OP's idea that trains can always stop as quickly as lorries is as ludicrous as everything else he says.

The difference between stopping a train and stopping a lorry is that train stops can be planned in advance, and that is why they are potentially much more reliable than truck stops.

Good grief! Obviously the train was supposed to stop before missing a station and shooting across a level-crossing with no warning lights and the barriers up!!!

Can you imaging a lorry skidding for two miles or so, with its brakes having no perceivable effect?!

And yet you think that stopping a train is more reliable and predictable than stopping a lorry?! If you're not a troll, you're a very misinformed person!