Level crossing accident on Arun Valley Line 17/02/18

BestWestern · 2 Mar 2018

furnessvale said:
AHBs were designed to minimise delays to road traffic. I am sure the railway would be very happy with full barrier crossings but I doubt motorists would be as happy with the increased delays.

Well yes, but there are plenty of places where massive queues of traffic build up routinely at busy crossings. Safety is placed rather higher than the desire of motorists to get over a crossing!

RailUK Forums

Llanigraham · 2 Mar 2018

BestWestern said:
Indeed, yes that was my thinking. I am, however, in no way qualified to design level crossing gubbins! But it can't be beyond the wit of man surely, particularly as it is increasingly likely that there will come a time where trains thundering past roads without full, substantial barrier protection will no longer be considered acceptable. AHBs have surely had their day, and we can't replace every single one of them with a massive overbridge.

How would you ensure that the area of the arc these gates could swing into was kept clear?

Having worked a crossing where even when BTP were present people still ignored the wig-wags, the only answer is more publicity of the dangers and the correct procedures and more publicity of those that are prosecuted.

Robsignals · 2 Mar 2018

BestWestern said:
Indeed, yes that was my thinking. I am, however, in no way qualified to design level crossing gubbins! But it can't be beyond the wit of man surely, particularly as it is increasingly likely that there will come a time where trains thundering past roads without full, substantial barrier protection will no longer be considered acceptable. AHBs have surely had their day, and we can't replace every single one of them with a massive overbridge.

I don't agree that AHBs have had their day, they are a cost effective solution on quiet roads causing no significant delay to traffic. They are acceptably safe, all fatal crossing accidents involving cars where misbehaviour isn't obvious get national news coverage, this is the first such AHB crash for some years.

Chris M · 2 Mar 2018

Llanigraham said:
more publicity of those that are prosecuted.

This is a good point. No matter how harsh the penalties for something is, it can have no deterrent effect on people who don't know about it.

BestWestern · 2 Mar 2018

Llanigraham said:
How would you ensure that the area of the arc these gates could swing into was kept clear?

Having worked a crossing where even when BTP were present people still ignored the wig-wags, the only answer is more publicity of the dangers and the correct procedures and more publicity of those that are prosecuted.

How do we ensure the area is clear on AHBs currently? You'd simply have to mark an 'emergency area keep clear' on the road. Bearing in mind only the exit side gate would be affected, so there's relatively little chance of there being a vehicle jammed right up against those barriers, no more than there is with an AHB or any other type of crossing, and in the event of a vehicle being trapped the situation is likely to swiftly become clear to those in the vicinity.

As a means of modifying driver behaviour, I would suggest that removing what to some is an irresistible clear, open route over the crossing, and replacing it with a physical barrier, is likely to be far more effective than media campaigns. We do that already, seemingly it doesn't work.

2HAP · 2 Mar 2018

One answer might be to set the barriers further back from the railway. A car trapped inside can at least be clear of the running line, even if not in an optimal position. The bit I don't understand is why would someone not want to see a train go past?

https://www.raiu.ie/download/pdf/ne...sing_xm065_co_roscommon_31st_janaury_2017.pdf

45669 · 2 Mar 2018

2HAP said:
One answer might be to set the barriers further back from the railway. A car trapped inside can at least be clear of the running line, even if not in an optimal position. The bit I don't understand is why would someone not want to see a train go past?

https://www.raiu.ie/download/pdf/ne...sing_xm065_co_roscommon_31st_janaury_2017.pdf

It seems to me that some car drivers hate being held at level crossings. At a fully barriered crossing near where I used to live, the signalman pressed the button to start the procedure to lower the barriers. Two cars obediently stopped when the red wig-wags started wig-wagging, and the barriers started to descend. The third car in the queue, however, pulled out of line, overtook the two stationary vehicles and zig-zagged through the descending barriers!

As it happened, the driver of the next car in the queue was a railway enthusiast and a fellow volunteer on the heritage line on which I was also a volunteer. He quickly noted the number of the offending car and, when the trains had cleared, went up to the box to give it to the signalman. He had also got the car number, but was pleased to have it confirmed by a third party.

45669 · 2 Mar 2018

Steptoe said:
With regard to the behaviour of motorists at level crossings I should clarify that the 'abuse' I referred to in post #150 was a 'white van' driver passing over the crossing while the red wigwams were activated. Our heritage line train drivers will all confirm that was not an isolated incident and moreover, as I often use this crossing as a motorist, I can confirm that cars are frequently stationary on the yellow hatched area (regretfully and surprisingly a traffic light controlled road junction was permitted to be constructed about 50 yards away from this crossing)

I used to live near a very busy fully barried level crossing which has a yellow hatched area meaning 'do not enter the hatched area until the exit is clear'. Nobody seemed to know that, except me! There were, and probably still are, regular queues of cars bumper to bumper across the crossing. I always stopped short of the hatching and waited until I knew I could safely get off the other side, and the result was always loud and impatient honk-honk-honking from the car behind, which I always ignored.

Needless to say, when I did move onto the hatched crossing, the car behind me would always follow immediately, two inches from my back bumper, even though there was only room for one car to stop clear of the yellow hatching...

Both my daughters took driving lessons from a local driving school and the instructor often took them over this crossing, so I asked them whether he had ever explained to them the correct procedure to follow at the yellow hatching. They both answered no.

BestWestern · 2 Mar 2018

45669 said:
Both my daughters took driving lessons from a local driving school and the instructor often took them over this crossing, so I asked them whether he had ever explained to them the correct procedure to follow at the yellow hatching. They both answered no.

Perhaps he thought it was painfully obvious! But of course, as you point out, sometimes painfully obvious just isn't enough :frown:

I trust both daughters were duly educated!

45669 · 2 Mar 2018

BestWestern said:
Perhaps he thought it was painfully obvious! But of course, as you point out, sometimes painfully obvious just isn't enough I trust both daughters were duly educated!

Obvious or not, I was paying him good money, as the instructor, to instruct. And yes, I made sure that they understood the rules.

philthetube · 2 Mar 2018

BestWestern said:
How do we ensure the area is clear on AHBs currently? You'd simply have to mark an 'emergency area keep clear' on the road. Bearing in mind only the exit side gate would be affected, so there's relatively little chance of there being a vehicle jammed right up against those barriers, no more than there is with an AHB or any other type of crossing, and in the event of a vehicle being trapped the situation is likely to swiftly become clear to those in the vicinity.

As a means of modifying driver behaviour, I would suggest that removing what to some is an irresistible clear, open route over the crossing, and replacing it with a physical barrier, is likely to be far more effective than media campaigns. We do that already, seemingly it doesn't work.

Are you going to provide red flashing lights to ensure that people do not drive into these areas. Relatively little chance is not good enough,

aar0 · 3 Mar 2018

45669 said:
I used to live near a very busy fully barried level crossing which has a yellow hatched area meaning 'do not enter the hatched area until the exit is clear'. Nobody seemed to know that, except me! There were, and probably still are, regular queues of cars bumper to bumper across the crossing. I always stopped short of the hatching and waited until I knew I could safely get off the other side, and the result was always loud and impatient honk-honk-honking from the car behind, which I always ignored

I used to live next to the docks in Southampton, which has a few ungated crossings, with the hatchings. Freight crosses at walking pace, but still, don't enter unless the exit is clear!

furnessvale · 3 Mar 2018

aar0 said:
I used to live next to the docks in Southampton, which has a few ungated crossings, with the hatchings. Freight crosses at walking pace, but still, don't enter unless the exit is clear!

On at least one occasion on the Preston dock branch, the guard would start unpinning brakes at the rear on a stationary downhill train. The 08 at the front would be pushed with locked wheels over the crossing, taking an errant car with it!

BestWestern · 3 Mar 2018

philthetube said:
Are you going to provide red flashing lights to ensure that people do not drive into these areas. Relatively little chance is not good enough,

Do we provide red flashing lights currently to prevent people driving in the 'escape' area on the non-barriered side of an AHB? Exactly the same situation and risk. Bit of an odd question.

Robsignals · 6 Mar 2018

I visited Barns Green on 5/3 and still completely closed, not even pedestrians allowed, and no sign of a new REB. There was a detachment of the Orange Army though not clear what they were doing, had a general chat but they were very careful not to comment on the accident only saying they don't have any idea when it will reopen. Did confirm that Axle Counters are used and that crossing controls can allow barriers to raise with the rear of a train standing on the crossing.

sarahj · 6 Mar 2018

The unit involved

pompeyfan · 17 Jan 2019

Sorry to bump a thread that’s nearly a year old, but I notice the inquiry into the deaths of the car occupants has opened today. Apparently there was no FFCCTV available from the unit.

Did the RAIB investigate and will their findings be made public?

2HAP · 17 Jan 2019

No RAIB investigation took place.

eastdyke · 17 Jan 2019

2HAP said:
No RAIB investigation took place.

Clearly RAIB staff attended site, to be able to say what they have at the inquest they did 'investigate':
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46905919
Part quote:

Jurors were told by Christopher Ford, of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch the system on the level crossing was working as "normal" on the day.

Mr Ford said an investigation provided "strong evidence" that when the car entered the track the barriers had been fully lowered around 14 seconds before, with the red lights flashing.

Lucan · 17 Jan 2019

Curious that, according to the BBC report, the family said they do not believe that the grandfather "would consciously put the life of himself and his grandson at risk", but then the boy's mother "questioned why, after the crash, the barriers were not changed to full barriers covering the whole road".

Surreytraveller · 17 Jan 2019

Trouble is, there's no evidence either way of whether the crossing was functioning correctly, as automatic half barriers are not interlocked with the signalling. So we will never know. Perhaps the RAIB should have made some sort of recommendation about having duplicate data recorders, or CCTV recording crossings, where the data is stored separately from the other data.

alxndr · 18 Jan 2019

Surreytraveller said:
Trouble is, there's no evidence either way of whether the crossing was functioning correctly, as automatic half barriers are not interlocked with the signalling. So we will never know. Perhaps the RAIB should have made some sort of recommendation about having duplicate data recorders, or CCTV recording crossings, where the data is stored separately from the other data.

There may have been local data loggers to record the state of key relays, and they may have asked for eye witness accounts (e.g. from the driver). I highly doubt anyone would state that there was "strong evidence" without having reviewed any, or the crossing was returned to service without full testing.

hwl · 18 Jan 2019

alxndr said:
There may have been local data loggers to record the state of key relays, and they may have asked for eye witness accounts (e.g. from the driver). I highly doubt anyone would state that there was "strong evidence" without having reviewed any, or the crossing was returned to service without full testing.

The local data logger was destroyed by fire after being struck by the remains of the car, the train driver couldn't remember the state of the barrier just the blue flash appearing in front of him. It will be interesting to see what the forward facing CCTV showed.

MarkyT · 18 Jan 2019

alxndr said:
There may have been local data loggers to record the state of key relays, and they may have asked for eye witness accounts (e.g. from the driver). I highly doubt anyone would state that there was "strong evidence" without having reviewed any, or the crossing was returned to service without full testing.

Assigned voltage free contacts and associated wiring for use with a local data logger have been provided as standard at crossings for decades. Part of the problem here is that the equipment room containing the crossing control relays and any data logger if provided, was destroyed by the car wreckage and subsequent fire.

Robsignals · 18 Jan 2019

Lucan said:
Curious that, according to the BBC report, the family said they do not believe that the grandfather "would consciously put the life of himself and his grandson at risk", but then the boy's mother "questioned why, after the crash, the barriers were not changed to full barriers covering the whole road".

No rational person deliberately puts themselves at risk but may mistakenly do so by not understanding the true risk. Full barriers would prevent this but personally I see no difference between AHB crossings and any traffic light controlled Junction except that the Stop instruction is made clearer by flashing lights and barriers. If the family believe he was taken ill full barriers wouldn't have made any difference.

Robsignals · 18 Jan 2019

hwl said:
The local data logger was destroyed by fire after being struck by the remains of the car, the train driver couldn't remember the state of the barrier just the blue flash appearing in front of him. It will be interesting to see what the forward facing CCTV showed.

No CCTV available but wouldn't 'Barriers lowered' be logged by the supervising box, Three Bridges ASC? The line was resignalled around 5 years ago so possibly a VDU workstation with a realtime recording. Design of AHBs is failsafe so loss of power causes barriers to lower and lights operate on batteries with alarm to signaller, chance of failure to operate for approaching train is vanishingly small (modern system could generate an alarm if barriers lowered isn't received within a set time after Track Occupied not that the signaller could do anything) and highly unlikely that the train driver wouldn't instinctively notice barriers up.

RAIB wouldn't state that they were satisfied the crossing was working correctly unless they were very sure after conducting an investigation that established there was no need for a formal report.

pompeyfan · 18 Jan 2019

It’s a shame that FFCCTV wasn’t available, was it that the unit involved didn’t receive the camera, or that the camera was faulty, or that the images were corrupted? I thought all Mainline trains had forward facing cameras, I’ve noticed them on 313s so would be surprised if 377s didn’t have them.

The statement read out on behalf of the train driver sounds unpleasant and he done well not to go into full shock shutdown. It will be interesting to hear the verdict this evening. I hope it provides comfort to all involved, including the family of those that lost their lives.

Spartacus · 18 Jan 2019

The unit didn't have a camera.

My personal theory is still as I thought shortly after the incident; two trains had passed shortly before and with the barriers not raising after them, and another train being visible some distance away the driver decided not to wait and calculated they had enough time to cross before the train they could see, but didn't consider the direction that they couldn't see. A report in the Daily Mail suggests the car was on the crossing for approx 3 seconds, which is longer than I'd think normal if one was driving straight across. There's been quite a few allegations made against the crossing since the incident, but with loggers and now CCTV they're all quite easy to disprove, but it seems there's still quite a popular local idea that the crossing doesn't work correctly and the barriers don't always lower, despite visual evidence that it does.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-grandfather-killed-train-level-crossing.html

Surreytraveller · 18 Jan 2019

pompeyfan said:
It’s a shame that FFCCTV wasn’t available, was it that the unit involved didn’t receive the camera, or that the camera was faulty, or that the images were corrupted? I thought all Mainline trains had forward facing cameras, I’ve noticed them on 313s so would be surprised if 377s didn’t have them.

Bear in mind, these units were built nearly 20 years ago, before forward-facing CCTV became mandatory, and before the technology existed. The reason 313s have FFCCTV is because they have been retro-fitted when units have been overhauled, and the 377s will be retro-fitted when they get overhauled.

Surreytraveller · 18 Jan 2019

Robsignals said:
No CCTV available but wouldn't 'Barriers lowered' be logged by the supervising box, Three Bridges ASC?

No. I believe the only communication sent by an AHB crossing to a supervising 'box is if a failure is logged. The crossings are fully automatic.

Level crossing accident on Arun Valley Line 17/02/18

Established Member

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation