Network Rail unable to close 'danger crossing' in Poole

[Railsigns]

Only in this sodding country can a fully gated automatic level crossing be called dangerous!

This isn't an automatic level crossing; it's manually operated, albeit remotely.

 

[bussnapperwm]

St Dunstans, Canterbury West springs to mind.

The barriers stay down for longer than they used to meaning queues build up either side which in turn means more risk taking from impatient drivers or able-bodied pedestrians who can't be bothered to use the subway.

And they had to then divert the Canterbury bound buses!!

 

[badassunicorn]

what about a more substantial barrier system? Something to physically stop pedestrians and vehicles from entering the crossing?

 

[ainsworth74]

The problem with that is that it would then potentially trap vehicles on the crossing...

Current barriers are weak but it's better that a vehicle break the barriers clearing the crossing than remaining on their and getting taken out by a train.

 

[Via Bank]

St Dunstans, Canterbury West springs to mind.

The barriers stay down for longer than they used to meaning queues build up either side which in turn means more risk taking from impatient drivers or able-bodied pedestrians who can't be bothered to use the subway.

Not quite a high street, but there is the crossing on Bedfont Lane in Feltham—with the bus station being on one side and the shops being on the other.

This is arguably the single most inconvenient crossing arrangement on SWT's network: it's a very high-traffic route with a train every ten minutes or less, and up trains longer than eight cars overhang the platform onto the crossing, and so keep the crossing closed all the time they're in the platform.

Although they're usually quite efficient at raising and dropping the barriers, pedestrians and drivers still (understandably) become impatient—particularly, I would imagine, if they're carrying heavy shopping and/or have a bus to catch, trying to chance it seems more attractive than using the (steep) footbridge.

Ideally the crossing would be grade separated completely, but the money and political will for that's never going to materialise.

 

[hassaanhc]

Not quite a high street, but there is the crossing on Bedfont Lane in Feltham—with the bus station being on one side and the shops being on the other.

This is arguably the single most inconvenient crossing arrangement on SWT's network: it's a very high-traffic route with a train every ten minutes or less, and up trains longer than eight cars overhang the platform onto the crossing, and so keep the crossing closed all the time they're in the platform.

Although they're usually quite efficient at raising and dropping the barriers, pedestrians and drivers still (understandably) become impatient—particularly, I would imagine, if they're carrying heavy shopping and/or have a bus to catch, trying to chance it seems more attractive than using the (steep) footbridge.

Ideally the crossing would be grade separated completely, but the money and political will for that's never going to materialise.

That bus station is a bit of a weird one. It is located in a side road right outside the station and only three bus routes serve it, two of them because they serve Heathrow Airport while the third passes it anyway as it runs down Bedfont Lane. The most ironic thing is the two Heathrow routes are actually the least accessible from the town centre as they turn off just the other side of the road bridge and virtually missing the centre, so it becomes a choice of either waiting on a narrow pavement next to traffic queuing for lights or to use the bus station which is quieter. There are four other routes not serving the bus station but all go through the main town centre (one terminates there). Until about 10-15 years ago the three bus station routes did use the level crossing when it was clear but these days all buses use the main road bridge.
(Fun fact: Out of those seven bus routes none is double deck, with only one seeing any deckers at all! :P Result is severe overcrowding).

 

[meridian2]

I have never seen a dangerous level crossing but I have seen loads of safe crossings being abused by the stupid!

Come on 455driver, you know the rules of modern life! It's always someone else's fault!

Abuse of level crossings: must be NR's fault.
Travelling without a ticket: NR's fault for not providing enough ticket machines/they're too 'reckless'.

I despair, I truly despair, but the elephant in the room is plain to see in all cases.

C.o.m.p.e.n.s.a.t.i.o.n

:roll:

 

[edwin_m]

How many other level crossings are there apart from Poole that run through a pedestrian high street?

Paignton is one with a lot of pedestrian flow in the high season. Redcar may qualify as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Elsenham? Moreton-on-Lugg? Ufton Nervet (September 2011)? Llanbadarn?

In the main you are correct, it is most often the crossing user who is at fault. However there are plenty of incidents through the years where it was the crossing, the operator/signaller, or the infrastructure owner, which was at fault. We also have a recent near miss at Butterswood, Lincs, where it was a train driver who was mostly at fault for failing to correctly observe the Driver's Crossing Indicator.

A near-miss recently at Llandovery not the fault of the road user - confusion between driver and guard about who should operate the platform control and check the indicator.

http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2014/report112014.cfm

 

[alastair]

Come on 455driver, you know the rules of modern life! It's always someone else's fault!

Abuse of level crossings: must be NR's fault.
Travelling without a ticket: NR's fault for not providing enough ticket machines/they're too 'reckless'.

I despair, I truly despair, but the elephant in the room is plain to see in all cases.

C.o.m.p.e.n.s.a.t.i.o.n

:roll:

Sorry, but I really cannot understand your post at all:

* Since when has provision of TVM's had anything to do with NR,surely thats down to the TOC?

* Who is being "reckless" and what has this to do with not having a ticket?

* Who is seeking or receiving "compensation", and for what?

Just curious,thanks

 

[MarkyT]

Problem here, is any subway is likely to be tidial! Crossing very close to sealevel,a no go I think!

You probably could do it with a subway, well sealed against water ingress with a pumped drainage system. Expensive and disruptive though; probably lots of services running under road and railway to divert.

I believe also that although Poole is now a pedestrian route only, there's some agreement to retain emergency vehicle access for parts of the shopping centre via the crossing should it be needed. Practically, the only way to solve all this is as part of a major town centre redevelopment. I would also move the station away from the sharp curve to the straight track section behind the bus depot and integrate it all better into a multimodal interchange combined with the new commercial development.

 

[185]

It's a difficult one, with it being the heart of the shopping street, something other than a subway or a closure order should be considered.

Maybe dropping the line by ten feet, and building the centre of the pedestrian street up ten feet would cure the problem?

 

[edwin_m]

What is being done in Lincoln may provide a precedent. Note that lifts are considered OK here, despite it not being a location with staff presence.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/2...High-Street-level-crossing-are-approved/?cd=2

 

[Kite159]

Shame they can't close the road (but keep the barriers for emergency services access), and build a new bridge with lifts at either side. No need for long ramps with lifts.

Similar design to new bridges at stations. But that would be too easy.

 

[najaB]

Maybe dropping the line by ten feet, and building the centre of the pedestrian street up ten feet would cure the problem?

I'm sure it would be possible from an engineering perspective, but it would be a nightmare logistically. It would would close the railway for weeks or months.

 

[455driver]

Sorry, but I really cannot understand your post at all:

* Since when has provision of TVM's had anything to do with NR,surely thats down to the TOC?

* Who is being "reckless" and what has this to do with not having a ticket?

* Who is seeking or receiving "compensation", and for what?

Just curious,thanks

I understood it perfectly, what Meridian2 is alluding to is that people abuse LCs (and other things) knowing full well that they will be able to blame somebody else when they get injured and so claim compensation , even when any sane person can see that the injuries were caused by their own stupidity.

 

[AndyNLondon]

I do think there's a case for different signage at crossing like this one - the pedestrian-specific red man light is essentially the same as is used at traffic lights & pedestrian crossings on the roads (yes, it flashes at the level crossing, but how many people will recognise that as having a special meaning?), but it has a very different meaning at a level crossing from at a road crossing.

At a road pedestrian crossing it is perfectly legal, and often perfectly safe, to cross while the red man is lit, while at the level crossing the red man is only lit when the barriers are about to come down (or are down) for a passing train. I don't think it's surprising that people will interpret the same sign in the same way in different settings, so using a red man light to indicate both "if you can't see anything coming you're probably OK anyway" and "stop, regardless of whether the crossing looks clear" doesn't seem the best of ideas.

(As an aside, except for where pedestrians are banned from a road completely, level crossings are the only example I can think of where standard road signs are used to communicate a "you must" message to pedestrians.)

 

[1e10]

Elsenham? Moreton-on-Lugg? Ufton Nervet (September 2011)? Llanbadarn?

In the main you are correct, it is most often the crossing user who is at fault. However there are plenty of incidents through the years where it was the crossing, the operator/signaller, or the infrastructure owner, which was at fault. We also have a recent near miss at Butterswood, Lincs, where it was a train driver who was mostly at fault for failing to correctly observe the Driver's Crossing Indicator.

What is an Driver's Crossing Indicator?

 

[Llanigraham]

Whilst I partly agree with Andy (above) about the "red man" it doesn't explain the idiots that still cross when the barriers are coming down or the even bigger idiots that actually jump or lift the barriers.
There are and have been plenty of adverts in the press and on TV telling people how crossings work.

 

[Muzer]

What is an Driver's Crossing Indicator?

On certain types of level crossing (specifically AOCL (Automatic Open Crossing Locally-monitored), AOCL+B (plus barriers) and ABCL (Automatic Barrier Crossing Locally-monitored)), there is no link to the signaller to show that the crossing is functioning correctly. Instead, trains must slow down on approach and the driver must check that the indicator light - the Driver's Crossing Indicator - is showing that the crossing is operating correctly. Only then may they proceed onto the crossing as normal - if it's not operating, I believe they have to ensure the road is clear before proceeding and then report the fault to the signaller so future drivers can be warned.

 

[Olaf]

It's the age old problem of the British public showing massive conceit, impatience and disregard for instruction and authority once again. NR should be rest-assured that the CCTV with exonerate them should any of these muppets get laid out by a train.

Good on NR for fighting their corner on this occasion.

Fundamentally a lack of self-discipline.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many years has that crossing been there, I remember watching the push pull 33's go past as a teenager from that crossing, which would suggest to me that the public are becoming increasingly stupid, and unless they pull down building either side of the crossing I don't think there is much network rail can do about it.

I am assuming that it has been there since the line was opened. This crossing cuts through the main high street.

I think an increase in the number of predestrians using the crossing due to developments on the Quay in recent years may also be a factor.

I was wondering if the crossing is closed for a greater part of each hour due to increased traffic on the line, and unfavourable train movements at the crossing - i.e. movements in each direction not being synchronised to minimise gate closures - which can lead to increased pedestrian frustration and thus a reducd adversity to the risks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just close the road fully? Removes the need for a level crossing.

If people complain, just point out that it is the stupidity of people that has led to it!

This crossing is on the high street, the main shopping street leading from the Dolphin Centre and bus station to the attractions on the The Quay. A crossing of some kind is essential.

Due to the proximity of the commercial properties, any structures built to divert the pedestrian flows will be expensive, and will have a detrimental impact on the area. There is also the matter of right of way. I am guessing that the relevant local authorities have opposed any reasonably priced proposals for closure of the crossing for these reasons.

 

[talltim]

This is arguably the single most inconvenient crossing arrangement on SWT's network: it's a very high-traffic route with a train every ten minutes or less, and up trains longer than eight cars overhang the platform onto the crossing, and so keep the crossing closed all the time they're in the platform.

Could they not stop these trains so that the other end of the train overhangs the other end of the platform, not blocking the crossing? (before anyone say, I would imagine it might mean moving a signal or something)

 

[Olaf]

What about moving the crossing slightly. Looking at 0:48, it looks like you could put a crossing from the car park behind BetFred. That way you'd take it out of the highstreet and make people much more likely to use the foot bridge, but it would still be available for those who really needed it.

I think that would be difficult due to the existing land-use north of the tracks:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...2!3m1!1s0x4873a73a42c41cfb:0xee6f7ba0b5a1ae07

Perhaps an option could arise in the long term if a re-development of the Dolphin Centre was extended to straddle the tracks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That bus station is a bit of a weird one. It is located in a side road right outside the station and only three bus routes serve it, two of them because they serve Heathrow Airport while the third passes it anyway as it runs down Bedfont Lane. The most ironic thing is the two Heathrow routes are actually the least accessible from the town centre as they turn off just the other side of the road bridge and virtually missing the centre, so it becomes a choice of either waiting on a narrow pavement next to traffic queuing for lights or to use the bus station which is quieter. There are four other routes not serving the bus station but all go through the main town centre (one terminates there). Until about 10-15 years ago the three bus station routes did use the level crossing when it was clear but these days all buses use the main road bridge.
(Fun fact: Out of those seven bus routes none is double deck, with only one seeing any deckers at all! :P Result is severe overcrowding).

I think the "bus station" as it is known (a bit of an overly grand label for the a few bus stands) was developed for the Feltham rail-air link some years ago, but the service never really took off.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is being done in Lincoln may provide a precedent. Note that lifts are considered OK here, despite it not being a location with staff presence.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/2...High-Street-level-crossing-are-approved/?cd=2

Something similar would be a good solution for Poole.