How to contact the crossing operator

JBuchananGB · 22 Oct 2019

I took this photo at a footpath level crossing which also had gates capable of being used by a vehicle.

The instruction is to notify the crossing operator etc. A sign on the other side of the crossing advised users with large vehicles etc to telephone the signalman (I think!).

No telephone was provided, and there is no contact number. There are no other signs.

The crossing is situated between New Lane station (AHBC) and Martin Lane (R/G) level crossings on the line between Burscough Bridge and Southport.

What means is expected to be used to contact the crossing operator?

RailUK Forums

MadMac · 22 Oct 2019

If there isn't a direct line phone, the custom (at least now that everybody has a phone) was to provide a sign along the lines of "To Contact BR" (or whoever owned it) with a phone number. Has this one possibly fallen through the cracks, so to speak?

Smethwickian · 22 Oct 2019

Not clear from the photo or description, but is the vehicular access a public highway or just a private access? If it is not a public road, use by vehicles may be restricted to authorised users only who might have been furnished with the relevant safety advice, contact details etc. Just a thought.

83G/84D · 22 Oct 2019

Some of these user worked crossings have registered users such as landowners, farmers etc. They share contact details with Network Rail. The user would provide a contact number and the number of the controlling signalbox or signalboxes would be provided.

If anyone other than a registered user wishes to use it I believe they contact the Network Rail helpline for further details.

I am not familiar with this particular crossing but perhaps it operates like this.

Bald Rick · 22 Oct 2019

Smethwickian said:
Not clear from the photo or description, but is the vehicular access a public highway or just a private access? If it is not a public road, use by vehicles may be restricted to authorised users only who might have been furnished with the relevant safety advice, contact details etc. Just a thought.

It’s a private vehicular crossing. In fact it is technically two crossings, one is a public footpath (for which the signs are not applicable), and the other is for private vehicles. There will be an ‘authorised user’ (possibly more than one) who is the person authorised to use the crossing, and also has a duty of care to advise vehicular users of the crossing how to use it.

JBuchananGB · 22 Oct 2019

It is a private access road between fields, and doesn't look as though any vehicle has used it for a good while. It occurred to me that this might be a crossing with only an authorised user, in which case that user would know how to contact the crossing operator, meaning that no means of contact or numbers are needed at the crossing itself.

If such signage is the norm at such crossings, then I'd accept that as the explanation.

Llanigraham · 22 Oct 2019

It is also possible that the crossing has been closed, by agreement with the user, but the signs haven't been removed.

ElectroSoldier · 23 Oct 2019

Not a line I know very well.
try the nearest signal box in either direction to the crossing, one of them will control the track and so the crossing.

Llama · 23 Oct 2019

That's Betts Lane user worked gate (UWG) crossing as it's known to us, I know it well (from the railway side). At a mileage of 29m 46ch on the Southport to Wigan line. Yes it is a private crossing which hasn't seen vehicular use for years. It did have whistle boards which were removed about 7-8 years ago iirc but it has never had a phone and it doesn't appear in the sectional appendix. The authorised users will have the contact details they need to contact the controlling signaller (Burscough Bridge SB) if they need to use it. There are public crossings nearby at New Lane (AHBC) at 28m 70ch, Martins Lane (UWG/MWL-X) at 29m 70ch and Boundary Farm (footpath at 30m 02ch) crossings. Martin's Lane may be a private crossing, I'm not sure, but it leads to a few houses, farmland and Sephton's potato merchants so may not be restricted to just authorised users.

eastdyke · 23 Oct 2019

Llama said:
That's Betts Lane user worked gate (UWG) crossing as it's known to us, I know it well (from the railway side). At a mileage of 29m 46ch on the Southport to Wigan line. Yes it is a private crossing which hasn't seen vehicular use for years. It did have whistle boards which were removed about 7-8 years ago iirc but it has never had a phone and it doesn't appear in the sectional appendix. The authorised users will have the contact details they need to contact the controlling signaller (Burscough Bridge SB) if they need to use it. There are public crossings nearby at New Lane (AHBC) at 28m 70ch, Martins Lane (UWG/MWL-X) at 29m 70ch and Boundary Farm (footpath at 30m 02ch) crossings. Martin's Lane may be a private crossing, I'm not sure, but it leads to a few houses, farmland and Sephton's potato merchants so may not be restricted to just authorised users.

Interesting that it is not in the Sectional Appendix (it is also not shown in an 'old' copy that I have).
However, Betts Lane is shown as 2 crossings (as @Bald Rick informed above) in old NR Level Crossing data.
Here:
1) Betts Lane Private User Worked Crossing with Whistleboards
http://archive.nr.co.uk/Transparenc...ts Lane&View=onList&postcode=l400ru&radius=10
2) Betts Lane Public Footpath Crossing with Whistleboards
http://archive.nr.co.uk/Transparenc...ts Lane&View=onList&postcode=l400ru&radius=10

I hope that the local LCM is on the case.

Llama · 23 Oct 2019

I'd say that something is perhaps awry then. Clearly the protection of users of the footpath crossing (essentially the same crossing, just with the footpath either immediately next to or actually over the same crossing infrastructure, quite a common situation) is reduced by the fact the whistle boards are no longer there. I do vaguely remember the abolition of the whistle boards being published in the WON years ago. The signage would only apply to the 'UWG' aspect of the crossing and not to footpath users.

Edit: Network Rails current public level crossing data shows this so is incorrect:

LAT - LNG: 53.615684-53.615684
Name: Betts Lane
Location: Burscough CP
Type: Public Footpath Crossing with Whistleboards
Risk Score: D6
Trains per day: 63
Line Speed: 70 mph

eastdyke · 23 Oct 2019

Llama said:
I'd say that something is perhaps awry then. Clearly the protection of users of the footpath crossing (essentially the same crossing, just with the footpath either immediately next to or actually over the same crossing infrastructure, quite a common situation) is reduced by the fact the whistle boards are no longer there. I do vaguely remember the abolition of the whistle boards being published in the WON years ago. The signage would only apply to the 'UWG' aspect of the crossing and not to footpath users.

If the footpath crossing is still active, there should be clear signs for footpath users.

JBuchananGB · 23 Oct 2019

I am obliged to you all for your responses. The footpath aspect of the crossing is certainly still in use, as a party of 15 walkers of which I was one crossed it on 9 October when I took the photo. The "Stop Look Listen" aspect of the signage is as relevant to walkers as it would be to any vehicle user. I have a copy of a book called "TRACKatlas of Mainland Britain" which purports to indicate every known piece of railway infrastructure, but does not show this crossing. IIRC the sightlines in both directions are pretty good. If the whistle boards have been removed, then presumably someone decided the sightlines were good enough.

This crossing is included in advertised an published circular walks, the leaflet can be found here. The crossing is marked as point no. 5.

The path then skirts around the trees and heads towards the railway line. Turn left and walk along the path adjacent to the railway line until you reach the level crossing where you cross the track to continue. After crossing the railway continue ahead and turn right at the sign by an old barn.

Llama · 23 Oct 2019

I'd imagine there's some decent walking to be had round there!

Bald Rick · 23 Oct 2019

JBuchananGB said:
I have a copy of a book called "TRACKatlas of Mainland Britain" which purports to indicate every known piece of railway infrastructure, but does not show this crossing.

AIUI that book (as most other track maps), only show level crossings that are shown in the sectional appendix, which this isn’t. crossings are typically only shown 8n the sectional appendix if they have some form of control, ie at least a fixed telephone.

eastdyke · 24 Oct 2019

Bald Rick said:
AIUI that book (as most other track maps), only show level crossings that are shown in the sectional appendix, which this isn’t. crossings are typically only shown 8n the sectional appendix if they have some form of control, ie at least a fixed telephone.

Thank you. Being used to things in Anglia, I had wrongly assumed that all crossings were shown in the SA. Anglia Route SA, the East Suffolk for instance, is stiff with Footpath Crossings including those without any form of control.

Bald Rick · 24 Oct 2019

eastdyke said:
Thank you. Being used to things in Anglia, I had wrongly assumed that all crossings were shown in the SA. Anglia Route SA, the East Suffolk for instance, is stiff with Footpath Crossings including those without any form of control.

My copy of the EA SA (which is a couple of years old, granted) only includes crossings that have some form of control or have a fixed telephone.

etr221 · 24 Oct 2019

Having read through this thread, a couple of minor concerns come to my mind:

If it (and similar crossings are not in the Sectional Appendices, what is the general railway awareness of them?
That there is (or appears to be) a complete lack of identification or contact information. I would have thought a sign saying something like 'This is Betts Lane crossing at <location>. To contact the railway <phone number/whatever>. In emergency...' would be desirable.

eastdyke · 25 Oct 2019

Bald Rick said:
My copy of the EA SA (which is a couple of years old, granted) only includes crossings that have some form of control or have a fixed telephone.

Thank you again. To illustrate what I am saying, herewith Page 214 from Anglia SA showing the Halesworth locale of the East Suffolk. [I could have chosen any of many other pages].
Summary: LN1430 Seq 10, last updated 07/05/2017
Seven crossings are shown only one of which has any form of control (other than signage and gates or stiles) or a fixed telephone.
From the top:
Halesworth Station, Wissett, Fairstead, Millpost, Westhall (ABCL), Turneys, Mayfield Low.
View media item 3567
Looking through the LNW(North) SA which was the subject of the original posting I have no problem in finding crossings that are not shown, for the Anglia SA I am struggling to find any at all!

Am I somehow missing something obvious?
Cheers!

eastdyke · 25 Oct 2019

etr221 said:
Having read through this thread, a couple of minor concerns come to my mind:

If it (and similar crossings are not in the Sectional Appendices, what is the general railway awareness of them?

That there is (or appears to be) a complete lack of identification or contact information. I would have thought a sign saying something like 'This is Betts Lane crossing at <location>. To contact the railway <phone number/whatever>. In emergency...' would be desirable.

I am sure that Network Rail is fully aware of all level crossings. The publicly facing database is here:
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Level-Crossings-data-August-2019.xlsx [my somewhat outdated technology struggles with this file!]

The question of identification etc is more interesting. Following on from a collision between a nuclear flask train and a car at Bratts Blackhouse No 1 User Worked Crossing, near Sizewell, Suffolk, 22 May 2006, RAIB reported in 2007:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c905140f0b602440001a3/R092007_070426_Sizewell.pdf
Included as recommendations 6 and 8 were:

6 Network Rail should modify the relevant company standard(s) to require the
provision of a telephone number of the signaller on all signs at UWC’s and to
implement a programme for ensuring compliance (paragraphs 109 and 125).

8 Network Rail should install a sign at all UWCs indicating the name of the
crossing to comply with Railway Safety Principles and Guidance, Section 2 part
E, paragraph 287 (paragraphs 42 and 126).

In either 2014 or 2015 (depending on which document you read) RAIB published the implementation response to the 8 recommendations:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...d915d036a00001e/09_2007_Bratts_Blackhouse.pdf
All recommendations were implemented except 6 & 8 which are both noted:

Network Rail have carried out a review in response to this recommendation. Network Rail propose no further action.
ORR proposes to take no further action unless they become aware that the information provided becomes inaccurate.

In other words what you have suggested was considered by Network Rail in the period 2006 to 2014/5 and not proceeded with. There was presumably insufficient safety case for the required expenditures.

My view: there will be a need to re-visit questions at certain UWC crossings in the future if and when their use becomes more uncontrollable. We have seen RAIB make comments in reports of incidents at UWC where the concept of 'authorised user' has become somewhat outmoded.

JBuchananGB · 25 Oct 2019

I have learnt a lot from this. There are 2 crossings there. The place is called Betts Lane. The signage is addressed at vehicle users, there are no signs addressed to walkers on the public footpath. There used to be Whistle boards, which have been removed, but the Network Rail database says they are still there. The vehicular crossing is for an authorised user only. The absence of any identification or contact numbers is due to a deliberate decision by Network Rail. Thank you all very much.

Bald Rick · 25 Oct 2019

eastdyke said:
Thank you again. To illustrate what I am saying, herewith Page 214 from Anglia SA showing the Halesworth locale of the East Suffolk. [I could have chosen any of many other pages].
Summary: LN1430 Seq 10, last updated 07/05/2017
Seven crossings are shown only one of which has any form of control (other than signage and gates or stiles) or a fixed telephone.
From the top:
Halesworth Station, Wissett, Fairstead, Millpost, Westhall (ABCL), Turneys, Mayfield Low.
View media item 3567
Looking through the LNW(North) SA which was the subject of the original posting I have no problem in finding crossings that are not shown, for the Anglia SA I am struggling to find any at all!

Am I somehow missing something obvious?
Cheers!

Ah. My SA is the previous version, and only shows Westhall on that page. It must have been updated with the additional crossings for that version. It may well be an Anglia initiative as they have had more issues than most with LC incidents.

Llanigraham · 25 Oct 2019

etr221 said:
Having read through this thread, a couple of minor concerns come to my mind:

If it (and similar crossings are not in the Sectional Appendices, what is the general railway awareness of them?

That there is (or appears to be) a complete lack of identification or contact information. I would have thought a sign saying something like 'This is Betts Lane crossing at <location>. To contact the railway <phone number/whatever>. In emergency...' would be desirable.

1/ The signallers will know about them.

2/ When a call comes to the Box where it is from either lights up on the panel or on the Concentrator telephone panel.

Llama · 25 Oct 2019

They're part of driver route knowledge and appear on TOC route maps for those companies which produce them - however Northern are still using maps nearly 20 years old produced by their predecessor's predecessor which are obviously aeons out of date in a lot of areas. Northern's drivers often use maps produced by other TOCs or produce their own out of frustration.

etr221 · 25 Oct 2019

Thanks to those who have replied about my concerns.

eastdyke said:
I am sure that Network Rail is fully aware of all level crossings. The publicly facing database is here:
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Level-Crossings-data-August-2019.xlsx [my somewhat outdated technology struggles with this file!]

While I never had doubt that Network Rail's level crossing record keeper knew of them, my question was about general, widespread knowledge, and l am less than fully reassured: it does not appear to me that a railwayman (TOC or NR) given the job of coming up with a list of all such salient features for, e.g. a conference with local authorities, (which is perhaps my criteria) could easily do so.
The fact that NR decided against against providing contact and identifying information should be a worry for all.

Looking at the linked database, I am surprised that the two (adjacent, 1 yard apart) crossings have different assessment dates/cycles - and that 'frequent trains' is only a risk factor for one on them. Worrying is the fact that what is listed in it does not match what has been reported above... And also perhaps an issue is that I don't how easy it would be for someone (not necessarily railway) to locate crossings on the map (or ground).

Also surprising (and, as an outsider, a cause of concern) is that route knowledge information is down to individual TOCs...

Llanigraham · 25 Oct 2019

etr221 said:
Thanks to those who have replied about my concerns.

While I never had doubt that Network Rail's level crossing record keeper knew of them, my question was about general, widespread knowledge, and l am less than fully reassured: it does not appear to me that a railwayman (TOC or NR) given the job of coming up with a list of all such salient features for, e.g. a conference with local authorities, (which is perhaps my criteria) could easily do so.
The fact that NR decided against against providing contact and identifying information should be a worry for all.

That suggests that you don't understand the route knowledge that is required of signallers for the patch they control, or for that matter the same required by drivers and guards.
There is also the fact that all lines now have Level Crossing Managers who have full knowledge of ALL crossings under their control, inspect them, and deal with their users regularly
And I can assure you that when discussions are made with external bodies such as Councils NR will have all the facts.

Looking at the linked database, I am surprised that the two (adjacent, 1 yard apart) crossings have different assessment dates/cycles - and that 'frequent trains' is only a risk factor for one on them. Worrying is the fact that what is listed in it does not match what has been reported above...

Each crossing is assessed for the use that is being made of it, so 2 close crossings having different uses will obviously be different. And as has been said the vehicular use of this crossing appears to have been closed but the signage not removed.

And also perhaps an issue is that I don't how easy it would be for someone (not necessarily railway) to locate crossings on the map (or ground).

For the general public you look at the OS map; it is quite obvious if a Right of Way crosses a railway line. I fail to see what other details they would require. On the ground it is blatantly obvious.
If you have a Garmin Sat Nav you can even download a file that has ALL the level crossings in it.

Also surprising (and, as an outsider, a cause of concern) is that route knowledge information is down to individual TOCs...

Route knowledge for what?
For drivers/guards who else could do it other than the ToC's?
I fail to understand why this is a concern.

High Dyke · 28 Oct 2019

There are instances of UWC locations that are known as 'passive crossings' i.e. They may appear in a Sectional Appendix, or may not. to highlight one example there's one such crossing between Sleaford and Boston - merely to access the local pumping station by the local drainage board. The crossing had telephones showing the STD phone number of the signal box at Heckington; however it doesn't appear on any diagram at Heckington, nor at Hubberts Bridge.

There was an incident in north Lincolnshire a few years ago, subsequently briefed out to signallers. A user phoned up from one of these 'passive' crossing to the controlling signaller (York ROC) requesting permission to cross. The person receiving the call didn't challenge the caller about the type of crossing they were at and assumed they meant the AHB crossing on the Brigg line - that line being closed that day to trains. They gave permission to cross and the user then reported that a train had narrowly missed them. York ROC had no idea there was a similarly named crossing on the Lincoln - Barnetby line. The two crossings are about a mile apart.

Meerkat · 28 Oct 2019

There was a thread here about installations that turned out to be solar battery powered cutting monitoring systems that could then trigger cameras to take images.
Could something similar be used as assistance at some locations, or would they automatically become safety related and too expensive?
One, max two, cameras could be used to confirm the caller is really at the crossing assumed, any vehicles are as assumed, and then that they have cleared the crossing.
Would only need low frame rate to reduce data and power loads, could be motion/gate activated if useful or just triggered by signalman. Any kind of sensor would be useful for measuring usage....with a view to closure or risk monitoring.

How to contact the crossing operator

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member