Railway level crossings

peachyprice

modsandmockers wrote: »

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

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

You've missed the point entirely.

The train runs to a timetable, cars don't. How will the barriers know when to stop the trains? Cars come at random times and with random frequency. Do you suggest they could stop the trains until a there's a gap in traffic and make a run for it hoping no cars come in the meantime?

I makes no sense. There would still have to be traffic lights to stop the traffic otherwise the train could sit there all day waiting for a long enough gap to get going again.

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

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.

If the event was reported on the main news channels, then it was clearly an exceptional event which has no bearing at all on a normal daily experience.

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!

All my comments have been intended to refer to lightly-used rural level crossings, and I've tried to make that clear several times

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?!

On the particular line which I have in mind, there is less than two miles between most of the stations!

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!

If stopping a train is as unreliable as you say, then we are all in greater danger than we ever imagined,

modsandmockers

peachyprice wrote: »

You've missed the point entirely.

The train runs to a timetable, cars don't. How will the barriers know when to stop the trains? Cars come at random times and with random frequency. Do you suggest they could stop the trains until a there's a gap in traffic and make a run for it hoping no cars come in the meantime?

I makes no sense. There would still have to be traffic lights to stop the traffic otherwise the train could sit there all day waiting for a long enough gap to get going again.

The whole point is that the barriers will always stop the train - when the barriers have sensed that the train has stopped, then the road will be closed as normal, and the train will proceed. Road users will have no temptation to jump the crossing, and neither the train nor the road traffic will have been significantly delayed. Please remember that I am referring only to lightly used branch lines, which are where most of the fatalities seem to occur.

wealdroam

modsandmockers wrote: »

Please remember that I am referring only to lightly used branch lines, which are where most of the fatalities seem to occur.

Still waiting for some sort of confirmation of that statement... as requested in post#17

Running_On_Empty

Armyknife, have you solved your other problem yet of the aircraft crossing the motorway?

modsandmockers

wealdroam wrote: »

Still waiting for some sort of confirmation of that statement... as requested in post#17

Here is the content of the link which you posted in #17 (unfortunately the formatting is not as good as in the original document). I can see no differentiation in the figures between mainline level crossings and rural branch line level crossings. And, in general, the only really noticeable figure is the closure of 804 level crossings, which has already been referred to on this thread.

There is no indication that any consideration was given to the possibility of changing the priorities on some of those crossings, as an alternative to closing them completely. I think it would have been called BlueSkyThinking, but what do I know - I'm just a clapped out ex-trucker... But I thought this statement was interesting - 804 level crossings were closed in the control period contributing to a 31% reduction in the overall level of predicted risk as measured by the LCRIM against an internal target of 25% for the control period. - what is the meaning of a 31% reduction in predicted risk? Was the actual risk reduced, or did it remain the same? Maybe it actually increased... who can tell?


Level crossing events

Definition
This measure comprises the number of incidents where a motorised vehicle is struck by, or strikes, a train or any incident where a pedestrian or user of a non-motorised vehicle is struck and fatally injured by a train, or any near miss with a motorised vehicle or non-motorised vehicle or pedestrian. The table below shows deliberate level crossing misuse for 2013/14 compared with previous years.

Results
Level crossing events
2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Level crossing events (MAA) England & Wales
26.07

27.91

29.15

27.00

26.69

Level crossing events (MAA) Scotland
2.23

1.47

1.85

1.31

1.31

Level crossing events (MAA) Network-wide
28.38

29.38

31.00

28.31

27.00

Collisions with road vehicles
14

5

10

10

10

Train striking pedestrian
8

4

3

4

5

Near miss with road vehicle
138

113

110

95

95

Near miss with non-vehicle users
209

260

279

259

241

Commentary
There were seven adult fatalities and no child fatalities at level crossings during the year. The total number of significant level crossing incidents for the year was 351, compared with 368 in the previous year, and the rate of significant level crossing events at the end of the period was 27.00, compared with 28.31 last year, and is at its lowest rate for the control period. Level crossing risk reduced by 10.49% during 2013/14 as measured by the Level Crossing Risk Indicator Model (LCRIM).

Despite the numbers fluctuating from year-to-year, there was a detectable reduction in trains striking pedestrians and in near-misses reported with road vehicles at level crossings. There was no detectable change in road vehicle collisions or near misses reported with non-vehicle users. 804 level crossings were closed in the control period contributing to a 31% reduction in the overall level of predicted risk as measured by the LCRIM against an internal target of 25% for the control period.

We continue to implement our strategy for reducing level crossing risk, including the continuation of our annual national advertising campaign aimed at raising awareness for motorists of the dangers of misusing level crossings.


If I am correct in my belief that most level crossing incidents involve local people who, because of their local knowledge, habitually ignore the warning signs until the day their luck runs out, then it is hard to know what purpose is likely to be served by a national advertising campaign.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

If stopping a train is as unreliable as you say, then we are all in greater danger than we ever imagined,

No we're not; it just you! The rest of us are quite aware that trains can take a long time to stop.

You must have missed all the railway safety videos. Had railways been invented when you were at school?

jbuchanangb

Here is a report of a train failing to stop at a station due to slippery track, and passing across a level crossing.
http://raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/111117_R182011_Stonegate.pdf
Fortunately the level crossing was fully automatic and closed its barriers across the road even though the train was out of control

peachyprice

modsandmockers wrote: »

The whole point is that the barriers will always stop the train - when the barriers have sensed that the train has stopped, then the road will be closed as normal, and the train will proceed. Road users will have no temptation to jump the crossing, and neither the train nor the road traffic will have been significantly delayed. Please remember that I am referring only to lightly used branch lines, which are where most of the fatalities seem to occur.

So the barriers stop the train, then more barriers stop the cars, once the cars have stopped the train moves on?

How is that going to be any quicker than the current level crossing? By the time the train has stopped, the cars have stopped and the train has started up an moved on the cars will have waited for the same amount of time.

wealdroam

modsandmockers wrote: »

Here is the content of the link which you posted in #17. I can see no differentiation in the figures between mainline level crossings and rural branch line level crossings.

<snipped all the text which is an exact copy of the document I linked to in post#17>

If I am correct in my belief that most level crossing incidents involve local people who, because of their local knowledge, habitually ignore the warning signs until the day their luck runs out, then it is hard to know what purpose is likely to be served by a national advertising campaign.

Yes, yes, yes. I pointed you to those figures.

I know they don't differentiate between 'mainline' and 'rural branch line' crossings.

Which is precisely why I asked you:

wealdroam wrote: »

modsandmockers wrote: »

Fatalities are almost unheard of on mainline level crossings.

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

If you haven't got any, that's fine... just say so.

But do keep in mind that fatalities due to misuse are 'almost unheard of' on any level crossing.