cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,254
(2) Would definitely require parliamentary approval. It is possibly a change to the road traffic act.
-
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!
Plumpton Level Crossing wheel-operated gates to be retained
- Thread starter DaveHarries
- Start date
- Status
(2) Would definitely require parliamentary approval. It is possibly a change to the road traffic act.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DarloRich, surely if you have to wait until the next Ice Age for product testing, acceptance etc, the Railway must be at a standstill re progress?
OxtedL, I thought it had been established in an earlier post that there will be some circumstances due to failure where it will be possible for a train to pass through the crossing with barriers raised? If a standard stipulates where a signal should be located why is it acceptable to not comply with that standard? In an earlier post, someone else raised the possibility of passengers alighting due to a train being held at a signal immediately prior to a station. I used the examples simply to show how the information could be used by the 'anti brigade'.
OxtedL, I thought it had been established in an earlier post that there will be some circumstances due to failure where it will be possible for a train to pass through the crossing with barriers raised? If a standard stipulates where a signal should be located why is it acceptable to not comply with that standard? In an earlier post, someone else raised the possibility of passengers alighting due to a train being held at a signal immediately prior to a station. I used the examples simply to show how the information could be used by the 'anti brigade'.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Of course. Thats exactly it. I should have known. You are trying to be clever. Got you!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Which is exactly what i think you are fishing for. You don't understand or want to understand the context of such statements.
Yes, it is possible, in carefully specified (and risk-assessed) circumstances. Any attempt by the 'anti' brigade to use that against the railway can quickly and easily be discredited.
It's not about failing to comply with the standard - it's about introducing mitigation (usually as required by the standard) if the signal can't be located at the ideal distance. It is, however, possible to apply for derogations against standards, through a formal process that will again require appropriate mitigation. Isn't that to be expected when trying to apply a single set of standards to a multitude of different situations, each with its own little niceties?
Tomnick, you provide some very well explained answers. As an outsider though, I find a lot of what appear to be innacuracies in some of the information put forward by Network Rail. I stumbled across the application for a deviation from the standard and even that seems to include factually incorrect information. It mentions that in order to comply with the standard, the platform length would need to be extended or selective door opening introduced. Right now, the platforms are only long enough for the doors on 7 coaches to open (some services have 12 coaches) so why is it mentioned as a problem in the application? Hope the link works
http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/deviations/15-062 dev.pdf
http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/deviations/15-062 dev.pdf
DarloRich
Veteran Member
no - it relates to compliance with the standard if the signal (T645) is moved to comply with current standards and a derogation is not granted. I assume the signal and its location benefit from "grandfather rights"
Last edited:
Yabbadabba
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2014
- Messages
- 385
You might as well add trains can and do run through level crossing gates when things go not as expected, as happened in the deepest depths of East Anglia this year. It's a fact of life in all things that surround us, whether it's the railways, aviation, shipping or the school run some things can and do go wrong.
We are now at that great time of year where the press attack the railway for leaves on the line. But this is not a fun time of year to be sitting in a cab of a train with 800 odd commuters on board as the wheels pick up and don't respond to a brake demand. The English channels gales can't be nice for a ferry boat captains trying to get in through Dover's breakwaters or landing a plane at Gatwick with wind shear. We do our best to remove all risks but you can't totally remove all risk in life.
We live in a world where we like our cake and eat it, some would like a better A22, A27 or A272 but that would upset the people who live along the route, some would like a better mobile signal but that would annoy people where the new masts get arected, some would like a new runaway at Gatwick but that would really peeve off the people living under the flight paths. Some would like a efficient and cost effective railway but that would also upset some. The problem is we all want better things for our own lives, just as long as it's not in my back yard.
So do we move with the times and modernise or do preserve heritage, where do we find that fine balance and who pays for it.
The whole thing seems perfectly reasonable. The existing signal structure is probably in good condition and doesn't need replacing. Even with the new slightly widened roadway the signal will be only 2.7m short of the full new build requirement. That's for a signal with good approach sighting on a straight line with no Signal Passed at Danger (SPAD) history
Note Duration of the deviation:
"For the remaining lifetime of an asset or piece of equipment, to allow it to be phased out"
So when the signal structure needs replacement in the future it can be at the full 25m distances on new foundations and the deviation may no longer be required, although the Stowmarket controls mitigation may very well be retained anyway to avoid control system changes even if it's not actually required anymore.
Note the risk of this deviation has been categorised as low with the mitigations proposed and all the rail industry stakeholders involved have agreed with that.
Throwing another £400K at the project just to obtain full compliance in this respect seems very poor value and the money could be much better spent on a higher risk problem elsewhere. However I'm sure more than this has been wasted now with all the delay and appeals going on.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 2,571
The first two points have been covered by others but in response to the first:
A train can only pass through open barriers if under carefully managed circumstances (as Tomnick mentioned), or if something bad happens, e.g. poor adhesion, and it runs past a red signal. This latter can happen in exactly the same way on the current setup with gates, and it doesn't end well for the gates - it was only being discussed earlier in the context of "Stowmarket control", which a modern setup would have to mitigate this risk. It definitely shouldn't be worse.
As to the third: I don't recall anyone doing that, although if you can point me to the post in question then I will happily be corrected. What has been discussed is passengers disembarking on a platform behind a signal (so e.g. platform 2 at Plumpton), which might be held at red whilst this happens.
I know you are saying these are just supposed to be 'headlines' for someone else, but they do feel extremely weak.
Some people posting on here clearly think the Railway has a God given right to do what it likes, others are far more reasonable. Do you not think it is incumbent on Network Rail to present an entirely accurate, honest, even handed and best possibile case?
It has now occurred to me that the proposal which is described as a Manually Controlled Barrier (MCB-OD) Crossing is not manually controlled at all, yet Network Rail continue to insist it is.
To answer OxtedL's post above, yesterday Yabbadabba said 'Or it could be equally unsafe to place the signal on the approach to the station and have a failed train in the signal section ahead, where by you end up holding the next outside a station for a prolonged time. And we know passengers do have a habit of pulling the egress handles and going trackside to walk the 200yards or so to get to the station.' And that is exactly where they have placed a new signal in the London bound direction!
Regarding the issue of a train passing while barriers are raised. It is my understanding that if the obstacle detection system thinks the crossing has an obstruction on it, the barriers will not lower but a train may be allowed to pass over it albeit at slow speed and without anyone on the ground controlling the operation. Now, if you were a young mum with a baby in a buggy, would you prefer to be protected by a set of gates or face the unprotected underside and wheels of a moving train?
My final point, and back to the deviation from standard, Network Rail say they can save £400k by not moving the signal and that complying with the standard would require the platform to be lengthened. This begs the question, how much longer would the platform need to be? It is currently only capable of taking 7 and half carriage lengths now, so would it be extended so that it still only takes 7 and half carriage lengths? To my mind it is simply a very lazy argument, the author knowing that the submission will be ratified with little scrutiny.
Also, what does, 'if necessary' mean in the following sentence (again from the submission for deviation):
'Initiation of lowering of the level crossing barriers along with activation of Stowmarket controls will be implemented, if necessary.'
It has now occurred to me that the proposal which is described as a Manually Controlled Barrier (MCB-OD) Crossing is not manually controlled at all, yet Network Rail continue to insist it is.
To answer OxtedL's post above, yesterday Yabbadabba said 'Or it could be equally unsafe to place the signal on the approach to the station and have a failed train in the signal section ahead, where by you end up holding the next outside a station for a prolonged time. And we know passengers do have a habit of pulling the egress handles and going trackside to walk the 200yards or so to get to the station.' And that is exactly where they have placed a new signal in the London bound direction!
Regarding the issue of a train passing while barriers are raised. It is my understanding that if the obstacle detection system thinks the crossing has an obstruction on it, the barriers will not lower but a train may be allowed to pass over it albeit at slow speed and without anyone on the ground controlling the operation. Now, if you were a young mum with a baby in a buggy, would you prefer to be protected by a set of gates or face the unprotected underside and wheels of a moving train?
My final point, and back to the deviation from standard, Network Rail say they can save £400k by not moving the signal and that complying with the standard would require the platform to be lengthened. This begs the question, how much longer would the platform need to be? It is currently only capable of taking 7 and half carriage lengths now, so would it be extended so that it still only takes 7 and half carriage lengths? To my mind it is simply a very lazy argument, the author knowing that the submission will be ratified with little scrutiny.
Also, what does, 'if necessary' mean in the following sentence (again from the submission for deviation):
'Initiation of lowering of the level crossing barriers along with activation of Stowmarket controls will be implemented, if necessary.'
DarloRich
Veteran Member
That is entirely what is being done - you just don't like it.
And often the Railway does have (not quite) god given rights via permitted development rules. People need to understand that consultation is not the same as negotiation.
it is manually controlled from the signal centre
Passengers bailing out during delays happen. it shouldn't but does. The location of the signal makes no difference to the chances of that happening. Again fishing for something to use in your case that you don't fully understand.
Now moving on to fishing around safety and making silly points.
To my mind it shows how little you know about the costs of railway construction. Your true colours are coming through.
I will guess, but don't know, that the "if necessary" comment means that provision will be dependant on specific risk assessment as required by the Common Safety Method Regulations.
Last edited:
Yabbadabba
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2014
- Messages
- 385
You seem to be pulling facts to suit yourself, there has also ways been a signal London bound on the approach to Plumpton, but what was said was that if things go wrong and what you ignored was trains can be held back at Cooksbridge in the London Direction. If we go with you idea that you are exploring and place the lewes bound signal out of the station then you introduce risks that weren't ther before as there is no southbound platform from the junction with the mainline until Plumpton itself to hold a train in. Operating common sense is always try and find a platform to hold a train in, instead of holding it in the middle of nowhere, when ever possible.
Yabbadabba I never said anything of the sort! My point was, if there is a Standard that says where a signal shall be located, why is it acceptable to deviate from that Standard? A Standard is a Standard is it not? Or maybe the Standard needs re-writing?
Can you help me out on this MCB (OD) query - is it Manually Controlled or not?
Can you help me out on this MCB (OD) query - is it Manually Controlled or not?
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Standards are written for the ideal world and sadly as we all know the world is not ideal. A derogation is potentially available based upon the individual circumstances of the application and including a robust risk assessment of the impact of the derogation from standard.
It is essentially the same as a CCTV controlled crossing provided with an auto lower system.
Last edited:
Yabbadabba
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2014
- Messages
- 385
Then I apologise because that's how I was reading it, but I must of been reading it wrong and missed whatever point you were trying to make. Sorry.
I'm pretty sure my house longer meets the modern standards for wiring but if you built a new house next to it, that would. Don't standards like all things in life evolve, but as in all things in life not everything fits the pattern, then what do you do?
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
A number of standards exist on the railway, but they really only exist to ease upgrades and linespeed enhancements. What can happen with a derogation from a standard is that an additional permanent speed restriction is imposed on the route, to ensure rolling stock can meet braking requirements, if it's a signal site issue.
The intention has been, for a number of years, to have a network which is setup, wherever possible, for 140mph, 125mph, 110mph, 100mph, 75mph and 60mph operation - those being the maximum speeds of different classes of rolling stock, and the categories around which many systems, such as overhead electrification, are designed (current electrification systems are either 140mph capable or 100mph capable, as an example).
When something cannot meet the standard, then a derogation is sought and it may then be necessary to add an additional mitigation measure, so if a signal can only be positioned 3 or 5 metres too close to a level crossing, the line speed may drop from 100mph to 90mph, or it may be that the line speed is within the braking curve for the signal position, but it would hamper any attempts to increase the line speed in future.
It doesn't mean there's any difference in safety - a train travelling at 90mph will stop, say, 5 metres earlier than a train travelling at 100mph, so if the signal is 5 metres closer to the crossing, the same margin of safety exists, it just doesn't meet the standards today.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 2,571
It is called that because it uses the same basic principle as MCB or MCB-CCTV crossings, overlaid with additional technology that does the actual checking parts a human would normally do. A distinction has to be made with other kinds of crossing which already use the name "Automatic" but which operate in a different way entirely and someone at some point decided this was the clearest way the industry could do it.
I don't think Network Rail can be blamed for using the correct industry name for something!
You, as someone who might use the crossing, will prefer the signal to be there as it means the crossing can be closed for much less time before a train arrives. Yabbadabba was talking nonsense when they asserted it could be "equally unsafe" (I am certain they have not carefully risk assessed both scenarios in coming to that conclusion!), but they were explaining a couple of reasons why it is can be preferable to have a signal after a station rather than before it whenever there is not another factor in play, e.g. a level crossing, in the context of the signal going in the other direction at Plumpton.
I am not an expert in the operation of MCB-OD, but that sounds fishy to me. Where did you get this impression from?
The absolute minimal conceivable requirement (and I stress I do not know whether this is the case) for a train to pass through such a crossing without someone on the ground would be for it be at a very low speed, and only if the crossing warning lights and sirens were known to be working to warn the public. Your hypothetical woman with pram would be safe.
I cannot find where you are quoting this from, but it feels like you are taking issue with what could be a very minor wording issue? Moving the signal back along the platform potentially resulting in the platform needing lengthening or alternatively using more Selective Door Opening feels like a pretty obvious thing to write in a report, and unless it was worded extremely badly I don't know why this makes you think the report was lazily written. Could you block quote the problem paragraph?
OxtedL, I am rapidly learning that the Railway is extremely complicated!
I still think Network Rail are being disingenuous by saying the crossing is manually operated. Surely a Manually Operated crossing is one where a signaller lowers the barriers him/herself when they are assured the crossing is clear? From what I understand, the barriers on an MCB-OD are lowered automatically? Network Rail are keen to promote the manually operated 'myth' to counter arguments that a crossing where someone is watching is likely to suffer less misuse.
There was a fairly recent news report of a train passing through an MCB-OD crossing while the barriers were raised (I am not sure of the location) and Network Rail said the crossing was designed to work that way.
As for the deviation from Standard, here is the quote you requested:
'Complying with requirements of GK/RT0192 Section 2.1.13(a) will require repositioning of Signal T645 that will result in reduction of the platform length. This will also require signal sighting of the repositioned signal, review of inter-signal spacings, platform extension on London end of Platform 2 or provision of Selective Door Operations (SDOs). As signal T645 has no Signal Passed at Danger (SPAD) history and repositioning of signal will involve expenditure of approximately £400K in the remedial works, this option is not economically justifiable.' My point was, given the platform is already a short length (7 and a half carriages max) what is the point of arguing that the platform needs to be lengthened? Surely it is not relevant? To me, it just seems like a throwaway line included as a lazy justification. If you extend the platform by the 2 or 3 metres that the signal would need to be moved, the platform would still only be 7 and a half carriages in length!
I still think Network Rail are being disingenuous by saying the crossing is manually operated. Surely a Manually Operated crossing is one where a signaller lowers the barriers him/herself when they are assured the crossing is clear? From what I understand, the barriers on an MCB-OD are lowered automatically? Network Rail are keen to promote the manually operated 'myth' to counter arguments that a crossing where someone is watching is likely to suffer less misuse.
There was a fairly recent news report of a train passing through an MCB-OD crossing while the barriers were raised (I am not sure of the location) and Network Rail said the crossing was designed to work that way.
As for the deviation from Standard, here is the quote you requested:
'Complying with requirements of GK/RT0192 Section 2.1.13(a) will require repositioning of Signal T645 that will result in reduction of the platform length. This will also require signal sighting of the repositioned signal, review of inter-signal spacings, platform extension on London end of Platform 2 or provision of Selective Door Operations (SDOs). As signal T645 has no Signal Passed at Danger (SPAD) history and repositioning of signal will involve expenditure of approximately £400K in the remedial works, this option is not economically justifiable.' My point was, given the platform is already a short length (7 and a half carriages max) what is the point of arguing that the platform needs to be lengthened? Surely it is not relevant? To me, it just seems like a throwaway line included as a lazy justification. If you extend the platform by the 2 or 3 metres that the signal would need to be moved, the platform would still only be 7 and a half carriages in length!
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
There's an accompanying group standard which stops you having a signalling section terminate half way down a platform, which I'll let you find.
What will eventually happen is that the platform will be extended and the signalling will be redesigned to allow for this, a platform extension won't just be added to the other side of the signal and the signal left half way along the platform, nor will a signal be moved to a position where it causes a signal section to end half way along the platform.
Philip Phlopp, Signal T645 needs to be moved by a couple of metres. That means, the platform will be a couple of metres shorter, which in turn means slightly less than 7 and half carriages will be on the platform as oppose to the full 7 and half carriages at the moment (12 carriage trains stop at Plumpton). Why therefore use the platform extension argument as a reason for not complying with the Standard?
Yabbadabba
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2014
- Messages
- 385
You can operate an MDB-OD manually from the remote signal(box,centre) but that's not the preferred method of working as it's designed to reduce the signallers workload. Where the signaller only really needs interact with it when one of the various alarms that monitor it give a warning.
You could then why doesn't the signaller work this crossing in manual all the time. Well in this case they are also responsible for about 30 route miles of railway with two busy junctions, a busy station with trains splitting and attaching, a freight branch line, a passenger branch line plus a reasonably busy CCTV crossing already. If you were not modernise a crossing and bring it under the total control of a signaller, them you would want one that doesn't vastly increased the workload under normal conditions.
You could then why doesn't the signaller work this crossing in manual all the time. Well in this case they are also responsible for about 30 route miles of railway with two busy junctions, a busy station with trains splitting and attaching, a freight branch line, a passenger branch line plus a reasonably busy CCTV crossing already. If you were not modernise a crossing and bring it under the total control of a signaller, them you would want one that doesn't vastly increased the workload under normal conditions.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
If the platform length is altered, my understanding of the situation is grandfather rights to operate stock longer than the platform cease to exist, and to operate an 8 car train to this station, an 8 car platform needs to be provided or the stock needs to be provisioned with selective door opening.
carriageline
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 1,897
It's a manual crossing, which operates in auto. 99% the same as CCTV crossing with auto and lower functions. fully automatic crossings the signaller have next to no dealings with, and no function for the signaller to control them, therefore they are completely uncontrolled.
You say network rail refuse to innovate, but yet you should like you want someone on ground seeing trains over the crossing during a failure? What sort of Victorian non sense is that?
Your woman with a pram scenario is flawed. Firstly, if a woman is stuck on a crossing then they should be using it properly!! Secondly, the crossing will raise the trailing barriers when a obstacle is detected for a set period of time. It will then lower the barriers again, if the obstacle is still there, the trailing barriers will rise again.
If the obstacle is still there then the barriers return to manual operation, and the signaller advises the driver to stop short of the crossing, ensure its safe to cross over and then do so at caution, and being prepared to stop short of any obstruction.
No one is at harm at any point.
You say network rail refuse to innovate, but yet you should like you want someone on ground seeing trains over the crossing during a failure? What sort of Victorian non sense is that?
Your woman with a pram scenario is flawed. Firstly, if a woman is stuck on a crossing then they should be using it properly!! Secondly, the crossing will raise the trailing barriers when a obstacle is detected for a set period of time. It will then lower the barriers again, if the obstacle is still there, the trailing barriers will rise again.
If the obstacle is still there then the barriers return to manual operation, and the signaller advises the driver to stop short of the crossing, ensure its safe to cross over and then do so at caution, and being prepared to stop short of any obstruction.
No one is at harm at any point.
Carriageline, I really am not very good at explaining myself am I.
Currently, anyone standing on the highway is protected from passing trains by a heavy duty gate. I merely said if you were a young mum with a baby in a buggy, would you prefer to be protected by a set of gates or face the unprotected underside and wheels of a moving train? No matter how slowly the train is moving, it could be unnerving. Or come to think of it, how would a horse behave?
I know we are all simple here in the country, so apologies for that.
Currently, anyone standing on the highway is protected from passing trains by a heavy duty gate. I merely said if you were a young mum with a baby in a buggy, would you prefer to be protected by a set of gates or face the unprotected underside and wheels of a moving train? No matter how slowly the train is moving, it could be unnerving. Or come to think of it, how would a horse behave?
I know we are all simple here in the country, so apologies for that.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Your example is wrong
The replacement crossing will have barriers to hold back road and pedestrian traffic when a train approaches. You are trying to take a statement made further up thread about trains passing over crossings with the barriers raised, remove the context and twist it to suit your agenda.
Last edited:
The campaigners would have you believe that everyone in the town is either massively incautious ("people might wander off the crossing, over the trespass-guards, and along the track"), criminally negligent ("vehicle drivers will be encouraged to charge the crossing if the gates are replaced") or possessed of out-of-control beasts, which will bolt at the sight of an un-constrained unit (but, for some reason, not if confronted with an unfettered lorry, milk-float, car, etc.
The poor woman with her pram, whose contemporaries elsewhere seem to cope with booms, either up or down, seems to be a particularly delicate and oft produced example. Heaven forbid that the poor creature has to witness a train creep past at extreme caution without the protection of gates ! I can only imagine that she and her progeny have to hide behind a platform bench if she is on the platform when a unit arrives or departs.
Perhaps Plumpton is peopled entirely with early-Victorian stereotypes who fear the iron horse, or maybe it is only the campaigners.
The poor woman with her pram, whose contemporaries elsewhere seem to cope with booms, either up or down, seems to be a particularly delicate and oft produced example. Heaven forbid that the poor creature has to witness a train creep past at extreme caution without the protection of gates ! I can only imagine that she and her progeny have to hide behind a platform bench if she is on the platform when a unit arrives or departs.
Perhaps Plumpton is peopled entirely with early-Victorian stereotypes who fear the iron horse, or maybe it is only the campaigners.
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Looking at the pictures of the gates I reckon i could ram through them on my push bike let alone a car!
Imagine how the poor pram pusher must tremble and quake with fear waiting to cross a busy road!
Last edited:
- Status