Train drivers can be trusted to wait at a red signal. Road vehicle drivers cannot be trusted to wait for a lengthy time at a UWC. That's why the rule book requires us to tell crossing users to cross immediately if they don't require signal protection. See TS9
-
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!
Near Miss At User Worked Crossing @ Bagillt - RAIB launch Investigation
- Thread starter Y Ddraig Coch
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Wilts Wanderer
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
What other aspect of railway safety relies on untrained members of the public to provide the linchpin piece of information!?! In a truly failsafe system the signaller should assume ALL crossing users are large, slow and heavy vehicles unless the user informs them otherwise in an unmistakable way.
The BIgman1234
Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2019
- Messages
- 54
Got a set of these on my panel . 3 cars been hit in nearly 30 years .
Chris M
Member
Well you'd need more than four options - wheelchair user, tractor (& trailer), group of pedestrians, convoy of vehicles and motorcycle all spring to mind as having no obvious button to press. Also it might run the risk of someone pressing e.g. lorry getting a red light and then trying again with a car to see if that gives a green light. If it does then cue them just pressing car next time.
If you've also got a phone to cater for non-typical movements (which is what was involved at Bagillt) then you're not really improving anything but adding a lot of cost and complexity.
Personally I think cameras and signaller-controlled gate locks are probably the way to go.
I have more specialist knowledge than most road drivers, and I've read the RAIB reports into the crossing accidents, and even I would assume that the gates and lights would be interlocked.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
That wouldn't be failsafe by the criteria asserted in the thread on the Sleeper brake problems, as it relies on both the caller and the signaller to obey processes (what's to stop the driver going across without even calling?). The only system made failsafe by technology (short of closing them all) would be to convert all crossings to full barrier with obstacle detection, which would cost a couple of million a time plus ongoing maintenance and replacement costs.
What are the criteria for phones on a foot crossing? It's not something I've ever seen. The link below shows a foot crossing about half a mile south of Christ's Hospital station. Down trains run from right to left in this photo. I recall they weren't going very fast because it's uphill and they had stopped at the station though a 377 will be faster than the trains I remember (and there are more non stop trains now). Up trains were probably doing around 75 and about to start braking. Up trains come around a curve as they approach. The crossing is out in the countryside so it was easy to hear trains from either direction long before they arrived.
Given the railway is in a cutting here, I'm surprised that it's not a bridge rather than a crossing. This photo was taken 12 years after I left the school. The steps are the same but the fences all appeared after 1997. The wooden boards either side are much bigger than they used to be. The old rail next to the Stop/Look/Listen sign used to have a Southern Railway warning sign attached to it. Incredibly the annual school steeplechase used to go across here but it was rerouted via the road bridge to the north a year or two before I left.
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1292875
Llanigraham
On Moderation
The foot crossing with phones was in the middle of a curve and there was very limited viewing available in either direction, and with a busy A road in the background. Speed limit was (I think) 80mph.
Wilts Wanderer
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
I didn't say that it was. However it does illustrate the consequence of a passenger train meeting a large vehicle stuck on a non-controlled LC without signal protection.
Easily achieved by asking a simple question: "what type of vehicle are you crossing with?"
An interesting discussion though. In the boxes I worked, the traffic at most UWCs consisted of large vehicles (although "large vehicle" in this context was never formally defined - did the report mention this?), so there was no question of providing signal protection. One accommodation crossing was used almost exclusively by the farmer in his car to access other fields, with an expectation that signal protection would be provided! We trusted him to wait if he was told to wait though. One box had a couple of very busy occupation crossings though, mostly cars - if they turned up in the middle of a busy spell, or on a Sunday when the section signal in rear on the Down was normally about ten minutes away, they'd have to wait for quite a long time. I know that there was a significant risk of them getting impatient and going for it without permission. It doesn't help anyone to be able to blame the crossing user after a collision. I'd much rather give them permission to cross with a train accepted from the box in rear (so no signal protection) or even in section as long as there was a generous margin of error, than have them take matters into their own hands and cross just as the train finally arrives on the scene.
That specific question was asked:
There was an issue about definitions about a "wagon" between the two people. Seems an unusual word to use for a road vehicle and would have thought it might prompt a follow up question for clarity.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
That I suspect is a regional thing.
When I lived in South Wales it was a common term for a lorry, and even up here I still often hear it:
"Here's the milk wagon" (The milk tanker collecting from the farms) or at this time of year it's the "Hay Wagon", the hay contractor and his lorry and drag moving hay around.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris M
Member
Indeed it does seem like a difference in understanding based on different regional and/or jargon uses:
From the RAIB report:
Paragraph 51:
From the RAIB report:
Paragraph 51:
Paragraph 61:
Growing up in Somerset, I'd likely have interpreted "wagon" to mean an articulated lorry but not an oversize vehicle - although on this point paragraph 54 is relevant:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I wonder if "wagon" has a slightly different meaning in North versus South Wales. The signaller was in Cardiff.
krus_aragon
Established Member
Possibly. In my North-West Wales dialect, I wouldn't use the term "wagon" in this context very often. If I were to, it would be a large vehicle, but not necessarily an abnormal vehicle (as defined by the signallers and the report).
Chris M
Member
I suspect that the dialect of the crossing assistant is from/influenced by the (very near) Merseyside conurbation, given his use of "turrah" for "goodbye" - something I strongly associate with northwest England. I know the England-Wales border is much more arbitrary in that part of the world than that between south Wales and the Westcountry.
krus_aragon
Established Member
Indeed: things are quite porus in that region, in both directions (Liverpool having been the unofficial capital of North Wales in days of yore, etc).
bramling
Veteran Member
Must admit (as someone from the south-east) the term is completely blank to me. For me a wagon is something on a freight train, certainly not a road vehicle - although I have certainly heard the term used in Wales.
Wagon, lorry, truck. All the same. But I’ve lived all over Britain so maybe I’ve picked up sayings from everywhere. I could be in the minority.
I will say though, if I’d been driving a 60T scrap metal compactor lorry that’s oversized....... I’d have mentioned that to the likes of railway signallers and what not.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
But it wasn't the driver who was on the phone, but the scrap company's "crossing operator"
Chris M
Member
I've moved about a bit as well, but to me while they're broadly synonymous "truck" is generally smaller than "wagon" - I wouldn't use the former for an articulated vehicle while the latter would almost always be such. "Lorry" covers both.
It wasn't the driver who spoke to the signallers, that was the crossing assistant who was an employee of the breakers yard.
I know it wasn’t the driver on this occasion! Let me put it in plain English so you don’t have to make any assumptions or correct every little thing!!
If I was the driver of the oversized vehicle, and I knew it would take more time then a normal lorry, I would have made sure, as a professional driver, that I was the one who gained permission to cross the crossing, and that I told the signaller how much time I needed to cross the tracks.
I don’t know who the crossing attendant was in this case, but I’m damned if I’d leave my life in the hands of some numpty I didn’t trust. That’s how I’ve been taught to cross a crossing. I knew this way before I joined the railway! One of my trailers was 80ft and I carried over 100T. I would not have let someone I didn’t know, gain permission to cross the crossing!!
Now I’m at the other end of this potential disaster (yes I drive over this crossing at 90mph) I’m genuinely concerned that this was allowed to happen. I put my life in the hands of these very signalmen, and after reading this shambles, I’m not impressed in the slightest.
If I was the driver of the oversized vehicle, and I knew it would take more time then a normal lorry, I would have made sure, as a professional driver, that I was the one who gained permission to cross the crossing, and that I told the signaller how much time I needed to cross the tracks.
I don’t know who the crossing attendant was in this case, but I’m damned if I’d leave my life in the hands of some numpty I didn’t trust. That’s how I’ve been taught to cross a crossing. I knew this way before I joined the railway! One of my trailers was 80ft and I carried over 100T. I would not have let someone I didn’t know, gain permission to cross the crossing!!
Now I’m at the other end of this potential disaster (yes I drive over this crossing at 90mph) I’m genuinely concerned that this was allowed to happen. I put my life in the hands of these very signalmen, and after reading this shambles, I’m not impressed in the slightest.
Chris M
Member
There are exactly two ways of reaching the scrapyard by road:
1. Under a low, narrow bridge ([photo at https://i0.wp.com/bagilltcarspares.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/flying-scotsman-bagillt-car-spares.jpg?fit=1400,700&ssl=1])
2. Across this crossing.
What alternative method of carrying out their business do you suggest is possible? Should Network Rail or the scrapyard foot the bill for a new bridge over or under the railway?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It seems no worse than hundreds of other places where large vehicles cross the railway, as long as site-specific issues are considered such as the wide track spacing leading to a longer crossing time.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
And here we have it (bold emphasis is mine)
Signalmen working remotely (often miles away) may, or may not have local knowledge of a particular UWC within their area
Chris M
Member
Ensuring that signallers have all the information they need to make correct decisions about when it is safe for a particular vehicle to cross a particular crossing is the key thrust of the recommendation in the RAIB's report into this incident, and also recommendation 1 of the report into the collision at Hockham Road user worked crossing (near Thetford)
I was suggesting NR bought out the scrapyard site to remove the need for large lorry access, then closed the crossing.
Chris M
Member
I'm not really sure that this approach would represent good value for money, especially when scaled up to other level crossings, when compared with giving signallers sufficient information.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Indeed. Considering the wide track spacing increasing crossing times, and the existence of an alternative route for cars, it might be sensible for this particular crossing just to say that every vehicle wanting to cross should have signal protection.
- Status