Railway level crossings

modsandmockers

jbuchanangb wrote: »

Six people killed in US today when female driver of Jeep Cherokee decided to try and jump the level crossing barriers. Barrier came down on her car, train hit it and she was one of the ones killed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31124170
Trains cannot, do not, and will not stop for cars on crossings.

Then the deaths will continue.

modsandmockers

jbuchanangb wrote: »

Six people killed in US today when female driver of Jeep Cherokee decided to try and jump the level crossing barriers. Barrier came down on her car, train hit it and she was one of the ones killed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31124170
Trains cannot, do not, and will not stop for cars on crossings.

The most telling part of the story is this -

'Metro-North is the second-busiest railroad in the US, serving about 280,000 passengers a day in New York and Connecticut'

I'm not sure that Metro-North has much in common with the UK rural branch lines which are the subject of this thread.

wealdroam

modsandmockers wrote: »

Switching the priorities at branch line level crossings would save lives.

I've asked you before to quote figures.

Please can you offer something to back up that silly statement.

timbo58

Is this nonsense thread still going?
The arguments against the OPs assertions have been repeated by more than one person and more than once, including those who are qualified to speak on the subject by virtue of their training.
Unlike the OP.

Everyone has the right to voice an opinion and have it heard, but there's a difference between that and the repeated assertions without foundation or proper research.

modsandmockers

wealdroam wrote: »

I've asked you before to quote figures.

Please can you offer something to back up that silly statement.

If you need proof that road users sometimes die at railway level crossings, then read back through this thread, and then keep an eye on your local newspaper. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen, and it seems to me to be almost exclusively on lightly used branch lines with no high speed trains.

I thought this was interesting - http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/wipe-out-rail-level-crossing-deaths-call-dismissed.23968594 - here are a couple of excerpts...

1 - Network Rail has rejected calls from MPs to eradicate deaths on railway crossings by the end of this decade.

The quango said the aim could be achieved only by closing all the UK's level crossings, adding that was a "challenge society is unlikely to be able to afford".

Nine people were killed on level crossings in Britain in 2012/13. Last month Louise Ellman MP, the chairwoman of the Commons Transport Select Committee, described every one of those deaths as "a tragedy which could have been averted".


2 - (Network Rail) added that if the railways were being built today "it would be inconceivable that society would tolerate the construction of level crossings, particularly those where a pedestrian could encounter trains travelling at speeds greater than cars are allowed to travel on our roads".

There are around 6,400 level crossings in the UK, and hundreds in Scotland.

Network Rail said that they were a legacy from when rail meant "an occasional slow steam train".


Also this - https://aib-cms.co.uk/sites/raib/publications/reports_by_type_of_railway/heavy_rail/level_crossings.cfm - particularly this -
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2014/report262014.cfm

On some of these rural crossings, there are no gates at all, and the onus is upon the road user to stop before the crossing and contact the signaller for permission to cross even though there is obviously no train within miles. As a pedestrian or cyclist, would YOU wait?

Johnmcl7

modsandmockers wrote: »

If you need proof that road users sometimes die at railway level crossings, then read back through this thread, and then keep an eye on your local newspaper. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen, and it seems to me to be almost exclusively on lightly used branch lines with no high speed trains.

No, you were being asked to provide proof of your assertion that switching priorities at a level crossing would save lives even though such a suggestion is clearly nonsense as it would be completely unworkable given how much more difficult and time consuming it is for a train to stop/start compared to road vehicles.

As for whether I'd wait at a rural crossing, yes I would or in reality I usually cycle to a bridge or proper crossing because I don't want to get hit by a train.

John

Stigy

modsandmockers wrote: »

All of the fatalities at branch line level crossings are caused by road users choosing to ignore the red light. They do so because, unlike 19th century peasants, they can see no good reason to wait, and their experience is that jumping the crossing is almost always successful.

So by your own admission people die on these small, 19th century Level Crossings, and you want to give the idiots that miss-use them equal priority?

Of course your 'stats' are completely inaccurate and unfounded, as you can't possible state that ALL fatalities at these crossings are due to road users ignoring red lights. I'd hazard an educated guess that more fatalities at small crossings are pedestrians either ignoring the red lights, or choosing to end their lives.

modsandmockers

I think you have misunderstood the thread - my ‘educated guess’ is that lives could be saved and unnecessary delays to road users (including pedestrians and cyclists) could be hugely reduced by switching the priorities at sleepy branch line level crossings (I’m not sure what you mean by ‘equal priority’ - the two words seem to be contradictory).

Trains have brakes, and they frequently make unscheduled signal stops without mishap. There should be no reason at all why a slow-moving 1 or 2 carriage train would not be able to make a scheduled stop just before a level crossing.

Most railway suicides take place on high-speed lines, where it is normal for trains to pass within inches of an unprotected and crowded station platform at speeds well in excess of 100mph.

Hazzanet

Old, but still relevant, fascinating BR training video on the "Three Step Brake"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_UFNB2Ujec

Stigy

modsandmockers wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood the thread - my ‘educated guess’ is that lives could be saved and unnecessary delays to road users (including pedestrians and cyclists) could be hugely reduced by switching the priorities at sleepy branch line level crossings (I’m not sure what you mean by ‘equal priority’ - the two words seem to be contradictory).

Trains have brakes, and they frequently make unscheduled signal stops without mishap. There should be no reason at all why a slow-moving 1 or 2 carriage train would not be able to make a scheduled stop just before a level crossing.

Most railway suicides take place on high-speed lines, where it is normal for trains to pass within inches of an unprotected and crowded station platform at speeds well in excess of 100mph.

I agree the term equal priority is contradictory now you mention it. What I mean is that priority is given to whoever has the green light.

Unfortunately you've done it again and made a rather broad assumption regarding railway fatalities. What is your source to evidence that most railway fatalities occur on high speed lines where speeds are in excess of 100mph? Bearing in mind a large proportion of the mainline network in the UK doesn't have lines that exceed 100mph, I find it strange that most fatalities occur on such lines.