BTP may have jurisdiction but not duty, do you pay for them? If not then there’s no duty to police your railwayUPDATE:
Situation hasn't improved at the HR in question. Have been in contact with Office of Rail and Road, who advise that BTP do have juristiction over Heritage railways. Am in correspondence with both Kent and Sussex Constabularies, and expect that BTP may also get involved.
the BTP do police at least one heritage railway......
I think the BTP have jurisdiction everywhere and they also have resource sharing agreements with the county forces but normally stick to their core business. In 2007 the tour de France started in London and crossed the Kent & East Sussex Railways level crossing at Cranbrook Rd. We had a BTP Liason officer who was dealing with all railway crossings both network rail and us.BTP may have jurisdiction but not duty, do you pay for them? If not then there’s no duty to police your railway
Said railway needs to lead by example and cut ties with the staff member who thinks that's acceptible.We have this problem at a railway at where I volunteer. It is a select few people who refuse to co-operate no matter how many times they are asked and,yes,they do often drive 4x4s. Unfortunately,our argument is not helped by a member of the railway staff who uses the crossing regularly. He always closes the nearer gate after him,but leaves the other one open. This kills our argument stone dead.
The police services do have a general duty to society, which they are very good at maintaining. Contacts through your area NR level crossings manager, who you should be good mates with, is a start. As that manager would probably tell you, it's not whether they have enforcement rights, just a visit from a couple of nevertheless pleasant bobbies in full uniform, with their helmets on the table, a badged police car outside the house, and writing things in their notebook sends a very different message to the manager in a suit just popping round.BTP may have jurisdiction but not duty, do you pay for them? If not then there’s no duty to police your railway
I was referring solely to the BTP..... They do not have jurisdiction across all railways but rather are employed to provide a policing serviceThe police services do have a general duty to society, which they are very good at maintaining. Contacts through your area NR level crossings manager, who you should be good mates with, is a start. As that manager would probably tell you, it's not whether they have enforcement rights, just a visit from a couple of bobbies in full uniform, with their helmets on the table, a badged police car outside the house, and writing things in their notebook sends a very different message to the manager in a suit just popping round.
I believe that Scotland and NI are different but there are some sort of mutual assistance agreements. England and Wales? As far as l know you are correct.Would I be right in thinking that any police officer can arrest anyone anywhere in the UK if they suspect a crime has been committed, or can intervene if there is a danger to life? That means that effectively BTP have jurisdicion everywhere, in the same way as a Devon & Cornwall police officer does in for example Yorkshire. However there's a big difference between jurisdicion and what is expected during the course of normal duty.
To look at it from a different angle, is there actually a stated requirement for any gates at all? Could the railway not merely replace the gates with simple, clear signage, instructing crossing users accordingly? In doing so they surely have discharged their obligation, perhaps also introducing appropriate speed restrictions - although it sound as though in a lot of cases that is likely to already exist.
If the gates are solely controlled by users, then in reality they offer precious little actual benefit to the HR, and simply become a problem when they are left open. By removing the gates, you remove the problem!
You don't discharge your obligation, but you do introduce a heck of a lot more risk, and I doubt such a backwards step would be allowed by the inspectorate. Crossing users that aren't apt to follow signs at a gated crossing certainly aren't likely to follow them at an ungated crossing, and it's likely to lead to even more misuse, either intentional as people will see an open crossing as less risky, or unintentional as people might simply miss that the crossing or signs are there until too late. Either way, not a good idea, just look at what happened at Lockington, a fairly low speed crash with a car on an open crossing.
I entirely disagree. Let's just go back to where this started - the issue is primarily near misses involving those not used to using the crossing. On seeing the open gates, they may even mistake them for simple farm gates between fields. The visual cue of an open gate may substantially distract, perhaps enough so for them to visually miss all other signage (we shouldn't underestimate people's ability to miss the obvious here). Remember, most road users are used to encountering CCTV/OD level crossings, where open gates means safe to cross, irrespective of signage.
Remove said gates and improve signage, and the key "attention getter" becomes the signage. This, in turn, encourages responsible use. A vaguely relevant study was done in the Netherlands, that looked at pedestrian and motorist behaviour around busy town centre junctions. The surprising findings were that safety was improved by reducing signage and pedestrian/vehicle separation. The reduced "clutter" encouraged more situational awareness amongst all road users and saw safety improved. Human factors aren't always straight forward.
This is an interesting discussion to read through. I think there's a really important point touched upon on the previous page; when it comes to preserved railways, we are talking about a group of people indulging in their hobby. We therefore have to ask to what extent it is reasonable to disrupt the lives of the railways neighbours in order for them to carry out such activities. Arguably, if the railway frequently observes both use and misuse of the crossing, it becomes their responsibility, as much as the users, to look at risk assessing usage. If we're talking about an access crossing, for instance, used to access a remote field once or twice a week, clearly the risk is much lower. If we're talking about a gate used to access a residential property, that may see usage 10 or so times per day, by both the home owner and other members of the public, the risk becomes far greater. My opinion would be that the railway should consider other methods than an onerous 2 gate system that takes considerable time to operate, places the user on the railway for prolonged periods and may actually encourage a more relaxed attitude to being in a position of danger. A simple solution would be a red/green light crossing. This could be treadle or track circuit operated and as alluded to above, should be in lieu of any gates at all and taken with a possible reduction in line speed, enabling approaching trains to stop should the line be observed not to be clear (given line speed is so low, and AOCLs exist on the main line, shouldn't be beyond the wit of man).
EDIT: After visiting wikipedia, I'd also just like to add that the Lockington accident seems barely relevant. The line speed in question was 50mph. Heritage railways would be doing 25 max, and likely far less if a sensible approach was taken to a known crossing that's regularly used/misused.
As a further point - perhaps worth even considering a fixed distant and stop board for particularly troublesome crossings. Enthusiasts will love the opportunity for extra noise and clag (or steam equivalent), and to most general public, the marginal journey time increase would surely only represent better value for money?
As a further point - perhaps worth even considering a fixed distant and stop board for particularly troublesome crossings. Enthusiasts will love the opportunity for extra noise and clag (or steam equivalent), and to most general public, the marginal journey time increase would surely only represent better value for money?
The crossing in question is on a road that serves both residential and business premises. The road is a private road, not maintained by the relevant Highway Authority. As far as I am aware, the only signs are on the gates themselves. There are no road signs indicating a level crossing ahead. I don't subscribe to the view that as "a heritage railway is only people playing with their 1:1 scale train set" lesser standard need apply, and nor do the relevant authorities.
I don't know how 'improved signage' for an open crossing could at the same time mean less signage, at least when legal obligations are taken into respect. I don't think an open gate's going to be any kind of visual cue or distraction for most drivers...
A train hitting a car at 25 mph will have much the same result as one hitting at 50mph. None of us want to see a heritage railway involved in a fatal level crossing accident, do we?
There is another occupation crossing on the HR in question where the HR trains do stop and proceed. Said crossing is shared with Network Rail, whose trains do not have to.
Interesting point - how is the crossing protected on the NR side?
Why if open crossings are deemed so dangerous do they still exist on Network Rail where general line speeds are higher? There are a number on Heart of Wales line, with a local speed restriction on the rail line . Picture of near Sugar Loaf. turning off the A 483, meaning a long vehicle will be sitting across the crossing while looking for a gap onto the main road.