Great Western Coffee Shop

The Inside Out programme tonight is highlighting the perceived [my italics] danger of level crossings.

The main argument appears to be that 32 seconds after strike in is inadequate for users to be safe, that Network Rail is irresponsibly [again my understanding of the tone of the argument] reactive to accidents (ie that they won't do anything until someone dies) and that LCs should be eliminated completely.

So are they suggesting all those LC's in residential areas should be replaced by road bridges or underpasses, with every gradient DDA compliant, so that'll be a few dozen houses demolished for every one?

Sounds like the sort of bowlocks Bob Crow might come out with.  Oh, he has already - with some regularity...

Paul

It appeared that the elderly lady who died was trying to cross a gated foot crossing with no warning bells or lights, in thick fog, when within sight was a fully protected road level crossing. The interviewer might have suggested to her companion that maybe it wasn't a terribly good idea to cross at that point given the circumstances. But that wouldn't have made for good television would it?


 

This particular incident was discussed on the forum here previously: see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2432.0

Sorry, this is stupid. There is only one* point:

If the lights flash, if the bells ring, if the barriers come down..... DON"T CROSS.

That's it. Just give huge penalties to those who are caught jumping across and give a deterrent to others.

There is no need for NR to spend billions eliminating every crossing. Everybody think of a crossing they know. Now imagine some sort of road/ rail bridge. Does it work? In my case it wouldn't!

_{*Obviously there are other crossings with no bells, barriers or lights. In these cases, phone the signalman and do what they say! Simple}

There are cases where a bridge would be a much safer and idealsolution, however I think each location should be reviewed on its merit

No, the crossing featured in the Inside Out programme where the lady was killed in fog was at Attleborough in Suffolk and had nothing to do with the accident at Tackley discussed on this forum.

The programme was totally unbalanced, saying 32 seconds was inadequate time before a train arrived and that all level crossings should be closed and replaced with bridges or subways.  As was found at Tackley a few years ago before the accident, local people living nearby didn't want either and the crossing remained.

The BBC also said more people are killed every year on level crossings that in derailments and crashes. As railways are one the safest means of travel in this country that is hardly surprising but one person every month is killed on a level crossing. That's 12 every year!!  Wow, however tragic, it is hardly a massive problem that demands billions of pounds to replace every level crossing. It's a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

It's all about weighting the risks against the cost of mitigating that risk.  Level crossings are safe if people take care and observe warnings. The tragic accident at Elsenham happened as the two girls ignored the red warning lights (the same warning lights that other people want at their crossing), and locking gates means someone could get trapped on the wrong side of the fence and in a place of danger. Signs ande notices are there fore a reason and that's the jist of the Network Rail Don't Run he Risk campaign.

Whatever next...speed limiters in cars to stop thousands of people killed every year by excess speed!!!  Let's get this in some perspective.

One of the problems with level crossing accidents is that they are considered rail accidents rather than road accidents to either cars or pedestrians.

A car crossing after the lights or barriers come done is exactly the same as a car jumping traffic lights and colliding with a vehicle crossing on green.

Similarly a pedestrian hit crossing the railway is the same as pedestrian hit crossing the road. If they've ignore warning lights then they are jay walking.

As such I beleive unless train passengers are killed they should appear in the road not rail stats.

However, what I've often wondered is why don't we have straight traffic lights at level crossing and little green and red men for pedestrians. It would mean they would be  consistent with peoples' everyday experience and hopefully most people know what they mean.

But as I've posted before even full width gates didn't stop cars colliding with them.

One of the most biziarre experiences I've had with warning lights and sirens was not on rail but the canal. On the Stainforth and Keadby which runs parallel with the Doncaster  Grimsby line. They are a number of powered lift bridges on this stretch that the boat crew operate with their BW key. They are mostly very minor roads or farm tracks.

My mate has just put the key in and pressed the button and started the lights and  siren and the bridge had started lifting when this woman came hurtling round the corner and straight onto the rising bridge. Fortunately he quickly hit the stop button and then lowered the bridge and  she drove calmly drove away. She was obviously a local because if you know that part of the world it's a dead flat plain with little population, probably late to pick up the kids as it was mid afternoon.

The usual explanation is that because certain emergency vehicles are allowed to go through 'ordinary' red traffic lights, there has to be a separate signal arrangement to indicate the absolute stop LCs require...

However pedestrians don't really take a lot of notice of the red/green men do they?

Paul