Once you reach a certain level of probability....
How likely is that? Unless it parked up on the crossing and then attempted to pull away cars just don't randomly stall whilst driving along and then stop dead.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Car struck by a train at Yarnton (nr Tackley) on 02/01/2013 & AHB Crossing Discussion
- Thread starter tsr
- Start date
- Status
Once you reach a certain level of probability....
How likely is that? Unless it parked up on the crossing and then attempted to pull away cars just don't randomly stall whilst driving along and then stop dead.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It is unlikely, but possible.
I work to Occam's Razor. The burden of proof would have to shift form car going through red light which is the most likely explanation, to car stalling on crossing. Given that local people have said that there is a 15 MPH bend immediately before the crossing, and that the driver was elderly, imagine a scenario where he slows for the corner, and then accelerates onto the crossing but he has selected 4th gear instead of 2nd. Car stalls and stops in crossing.
It is therefore possible and will undoubtedly be a line of enquiry for the police. For someone to say "the motorist chose to ignore a red light" at this stage is overly simplistic. That may well transpire to be the reason, but should not be asserted as such until proven.
If this had happened it would be safe to assume the crossing was clear and open when they accelerated onto it.
What is the time duration between the amber light being lit and a Class 66 hauled Intermodal train (Not the fastest thing on the line) arriving at the crossing?
Still not particularly likely, I agree, but bear in mind that vehicles will often be moving off from a stand when they enter the crossing (if a train has just gone by), or they might crawl onto and over the crossing (see my earlier comments on the stupidity of such behaviour) - in both cases, making it more likely that they'll stall. There's also the possibility that they might react to the amber light illuminating after they've committed to crossing. Once they've stopped on the crossing (even with nothing immediately approaching), I can imagine that some motorists might panic and struggle to get the car going again as a result.
Speedbird2639
Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 21
If I were NR and/ or the local council I wld be pushing for the closure of this crossing as a matter of urgency. There is a perfectly safe route via Yarnton La to the South which only adds 800m to the journey and completely removes the risk (assuming the old fella doesnt crash thru the bridge parapet while he's unwrapping a Worthers!)
I'm not anti level crossings and agree if used correctly they are safe. But people have proved time and again that a) they dont know how to use them eg queuing back over an LC b) they will risk their lives to ensure they arent subjected to a 30 sec delay. Wld be interesting to see cost figures for replacing LC's where the usage is above a certain level with a bridge vs say the widening of the M1.
So in short - if usage demands the route stays open then replace the LCwith a bridge - if a bridge isnt practicable or the LC use is minimal or an alternative route is available nearby then close the crossing.
I'm not anti level crossings and agree if used correctly they are safe. But people have proved time and again that a) they dont know how to use them eg queuing back over an LC b) they will risk their lives to ensure they arent subjected to a 30 sec delay. Wld be interesting to see cost figures for replacing LC's where the usage is above a certain level with a bridge vs say the widening of the M1.
So in short - if usage demands the route stays open then replace the LCwith a bridge - if a bridge isnt practicable or the LC use is minimal or an alternative route is available nearby then close the crossing.
Robsignals
Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 424
Guesstimate 45 - 60 secs. Fact is the crossing re-opened after a few hours and todays tv reports show it operating perfectly normally (majority of drivers saying they thought it safe) which proves all bodies find the crossing entirley safe. Police said they had eyewitness statements but were yet to interview the driver, the conclusion has to be the crossing was operating correctly and the car driver was at fault. Tragic of course but so are countless thousands of road deaths that barely get a mention on local news.
In reply to Tom
Oakham main and Brooke rd have been targeted by the Leics police/ NWR ANPR camera van regularly over the last few months due to crossing misuse mainly by women by the look of all the court cases going through such as these
failing to comply with a red traffic signal 3 points and about £150 in fine and costs although i thought most of these would be fixed penalty and not require to go to court unless they appealed
http://martinbrookes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/drivers-admitted-failing-to-comply-with.html
Pic of van in use at Oakham here note the main LC also has fixed cameras as well which can be seen
http://martinbrookes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/british-transport-police-oakham-level.html
Also view of motorists going through on red however this was due to failure of of the locally worked LC due to floods
http://martinbrookes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/oakham-level-crossing-effected-by-flood.html
Amazing to think though that only 20 years back (Tom might know when exactly), a passenger train was allowed to pull up to the peg in the platform while the crossing was still up (or before that gates open) which was always a bit disconcerting as car driver in the 80s, especially when it was a class 31 on the mk1 stock Birmingham to Parkestone pulling in feet away as you drove over. Now they drop the barriers well before the train gets anywhere near the crossing.
Anyway short of a car crashing through the barrier as the train is already past the protection or the signalman failing to confirm the LC is unobstructed before clearing the protecting signal, these LCs are the safest possible other than a bridge.
The vehicle was mobility adapted. One of them (obviously the passenger) was a wheelchair user which suggests it may have been difficult for them to think quick on their feet how they were going to get out of the vehicle.
Personally I believe the vehicle broke down/stalled on what I have heard/read.
I most certainly do not believe these two gentlemen zig zagged around the barriers, or misused the crossing in any way, in fact I know they didn't if witnesses to the incident can be relied upon.
Personally I believe the vehicle broke down/stalled on what I have heard/read.
I most certainly do not believe these two gentlemen zig zagged around the barriers, or misused the crossing in any way, in fact I know they didn't if witnesses to the incident can be relied upon.
Which is what i had already heard yesterday and was the basis of my posts at the start. Needless life lost but it is ok he would have been killed on a road junction if the car had stalled there
True but the odds of an oncomming vehicle stopping or swerving and aiding survival are a lot higher than on a LC unless you are playing chicken trying to cross the A1 on the many not fit for purpose road crossings which are now slowly being binned after countless coroners inquest reccomendations, (yeh it does happen on the roads as well.)
Let us wait for the report on this and let us not forget the Donny fatal accident last month, but some on here may well regret their posts in shame
CockneySparrow
Member
Those types of barriers work on a circuit system, once a train is on a certain part of the track it will cause a short circuit, (metal touching metal from one side of the train to the other through the wheels)
This will then cause the barriers to come down and all lights and alarms to go off
As it is a circuit system when anything fails in the process it will again cause the barriers to come down
I must point out that most barriers work this way, others are controlled by the signal box and when this is the case the signal man will not be able to change the last signal to green until the barriers were down, the only way of an incident would be a SPAD
I don't know whether the FPN route is an option for those reported by the Signalman rather than caught by the BTP van (other members might be more enlightened!), but I don't think the number of court appearances reflects the significant number of folk who are fined and received points every year. Personally I'd have thought the fixed (and very visible) yellow cameras would be a deterrent, but obviously not!
The method of working did indeed change at some point (within the last 10 years or so?) to prevent non-stop trains being signalled forward to the Up Starter (on the platform end) to await acceptance from Manton Jn, to mitigate against the risk of a SPAD. As far as I know, stopping trains can still be brought in with the barriers still up (but I don't sign Oakham so could be mistaken!), but this requires the train to be brought nearly to a stand at the Up Home first, which the TOC wasn't happy with - so that change is performance rather than safety related.
I agree (though there have been cases of cars crashing through into the side of trains - Ulceby Jn box in North Lincs have the Toyota badge pinned to the wall off a car that did just that a few years ago!), but the higher costs involved means that some form of automatic crossing was always going to be necessary in suitable (quieter) locations.
High Dyke
Established Member
Not entirely true. Whilst some AHB crossings may be activated by circuit operation the majority are activated by means of a treadle. This is a small box situated on the approach to the crossing which has a lever activated by train wheels striking it and thus starting the lowering sequence. Far more reliable than any circuit operated crossing.
In the case of this incident reports seem to suggest the crossing was in working order, despite the best attempts of the media to speculate otherwise. Therefore another cause will need to be identified by the investigation.
phonoplug
Member
I'm afraid its clear you don't know the area! Yarnton Lane is a mud track which is impassable in anything but a 4x4 or full length wellies at this time of year.
swj99
Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2011
- Messages
- 765
This reminds me of a statistic I heard about in the US, which basically established that out in the middle of nowhere, where the road was straight, and the only obstacles were telegraph poles, a driver who lost control was statistically more likely to end up colliding with a pole. I seem to remember the psychology behind this was said to be that they were more likely to hit something they were trying to avoid. Isnt it similar to how in a crowded space, with people walking towards each other, they tend to both step in the same direction in their attempts to avoid colliding ? Sorry I cant be more specific. Anyone else heard of this ?
Not necessarily. Liability for an accident is based on a duty of care, and the question of who breached it.
A person is either to blame for an accident, or they are not. The number of fatalities has no bearing on liability.
Sounds fair enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Ive never liked assumptions. Many sentences containing the word must are based on an assumption which was made before all the facts were / are available.
I meant even if the passengers are "egging-on" the driver, encouraging him/her to drive dangerously, the driver is still solely liable.
I think the "flawed" logic (ignoring that Yarnton Lane is a track) is that if you have two level crossings and shut one so all the traffic goes over one crossing you have halved the risk because you have half the number of crossings as you previously had. That of course takes no account of the number of vehicles using the crossings.
Correct. It's the cause that is relevant, not the effect.
Zoidberg
Established Member
Even the Google Streetview man doesn't go up there (well, not past the level crossing going north-east)
The restrictive nature of the lane is better seen from its junction with Sandy Lane.--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You may be referring to "target fixation" where one is fixated on what one is heading towards rather than swerving to avoid it.
A wiki reference, but Google will throw up others, including Youtube videos of the effect, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_fixation
Last edited:
The only time I can think this would be a good argument is if the combined vehicle movements made upgrading the crossing viable, eg for upgrade to a full barrier obsticle detection.
A little knowledge can be dangerous, there are not any as far as I am aware AHB level crossings worked by a signal box, not many AHB level crossings are operated by track circuits as you explain but treadles on the track that the train will trigger on approach, a form of axle counters. The process for an AHB LC in general is that a train will strike treadles a certain distance from the crossing depending on line speed, the yellow light will illuminate starting the crossing sequence, there are treadles after the crossing that will measure the axles of the train and then raise the barriers - for all you out there that say AHB level crossings should be decommisioned, well yes, lets get a petition together and ask the highways to set up diversions to the nearest bridge be it 40 miles away and just do away with the "Car driver convenience" of saving time shall we? How many road accidents casue injury and death on convensional traffic lights in comparison to red lights at level crossings? Many more I would say!
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Failing to conform to red flashing lights at a level crossing is the same offence as failing to conform to a traffic light, which is eligible for a fixed penalty ticket £60 fine and 3 points. Upon conviction at magistrates court, it has a maximum fine of £1000 and 3 points.
I have to say I think that this is entirely wrong, and sends out the wrong message. Most motorists would consider jumping a red traffic signal to be entirely trivial, and the receipt of an FPN and three points or attending an awareness course is doubtless considered little more than a nuisance by most. The potential consequences of ignoring a level crossing are so much more severe, and the legal position really ought to show this. Treating both offences the same is merely 'dumbing down' the very serious issue of misusing level crossings. This should be a separate offence of it's own, carrying a high fine (£1,000 minimum) and six points.
I have to say I think that this is entirely wrong, and sends out the wrong message. Most motorists would consider jumping a red traffic signal to be entirely trivial, and the receipt of an FPN and three points or attending an awareness course is doubtless considered little more than a nuisance by most. The potential consequences of ignoring a level crossing are so much more severe, and the legal position really ought to show this. Treating both offences the same is merely 'dumbing down' the very serious issue of misusing level crossings. This should be a separate offence of it's own, carrying a high fine (£1,000 minimum) and six points.
There is a difference in law to a certain extent between a traffic light and the red flashing lights found at level crossings- though for drivers of vehicles responding to an emergency under blue lights. They can pass (with care) a normal traffic light, but may not pass flashing ones. They also apply to all road users, including pedestrians. Which makes quite a lot of sense- as well as level crossings, the same lights are used for lifting/swing bridges, where the end of a runway is close to a road such that aircraft pass dangerously low and on blind exits from emergency service stations.
NR wants to close as many crossings as soon as possible, because they add significant operating cost to the railway and are currently the greatest safety risk.
Part of the problem has always been funding, it much of the cost seems to fall on the railway, when arguable it is the relatively recent rise in road traffic that is the issue.
In this particular case the crossing has been AHB since the 60s. The linespeed has been progressively raised to 100mph (the maximum over an AHB) during Operation Princess. The linespeed just north of the crossing is 110mph.
I suspect at the time a full CCTV crossing or bridge was considered, but the crossing was not deemed a high safety risk and/or replacing it couldn't be financially justified to get an extra few mph out of the railway, saving little time.
Correct, they've (usually?) got a track circuit and two treadles to ensure that the sequence starts correctly. My understanding (open to correction) is that the raising of the barriers is solely controlled by the TC clearing, so no need to count axles. As TDK says in response to the post above his, AHBs are never controlled from a signal box, but I suspect the poster had moved on to describing MCB/CCTV crossings by then!
Not that many to be fair, just see when there is a track circuit failue over a line how many AHB LC need a hand signaller at them, not that many. Addmitedly when lines are resignalled TC are installed however not at all locations. For instance between Wrexham and Chster there are 4x AHB & 1 R/G and only one has to have to be monitored by a handsignaller when pilot working is introduced although one does have a protecting signal if needed!
fordylad
Member
Only 2 days after an accident on a Level crossing in Oxfordshire, I find myself approaching a foot crossing on the same line when a woman strolls out in front of me to catch my train!
I find it incredibly annoying that when there is an unfortunate incident at a level crossing. The medias first response, is to blame anyone but the bloody idiot, who has disregarded every ounce of common sense and walked out in front of a bloody train
I find it incredibly annoying that when there is an unfortunate incident at a level crossing. The medias first response, is to blame anyone but the bloody idiot, who has disregarded every ounce of common sense and walked out in front of a bloody train
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,503
I think some clarification is needed.
AHB level crossings are operated by track circuits, supplemented by treadles. Since the timings at the crossing are critical, the treadle ensures that the strike-in track circuit becomes 'occupied' immediately the first axle of a train enters it, irrespective of any factors (e.g. railhead contamination) that might cause a slight delay in the track circuit being shunted.
A treadle is just a rail-mounted contact (or electronic equivalent) that can detect that the front of a train has reached a particular point. It is not an axle counter and it doesn't measure anything.
I can't see that it would be possible to operate an AHB crossing by treadles alone. A treadle cannot detect that the rear of the train has cleared the crossing.
If axle counters are used instead of track circuits, treadles are not necessary.
- Status