Another lorry through the barriers at Manningtree

robbeech said:

If there was a an anomaly with the lights sequence it would explain why there were issues with drivers at that point but it DOES NOT make the actions to drive across acceptable.

Click to expand...

It would not be an anomaly if the 1st train had passed the strike-out point shortly before the second train passed the strike-in point. Depending on the exact setup, it may be possible that the Signaller does not initiate the sequence themselves. Somebody with better local knowledge may be able to confirm exactly what happens here. I know there are locations where the sequence starts on it's own and gives an audible warning to the signaller to monitor the crossing and declare it clear (or not, as the case may be).

flitwickbeds said:

From the video only, one has to conclude that the time between the orange lights illuminating and the barriers starting to close is the same time as it takes a large vehicle to cross the entire crossing, at speed. And that isn't enough.

Click to expand...

From the video it looks like the crossing has just opened after a train, hence the stationary HGV and heavy acceleration/braking of the Van. The timings do not seem to be particularly tight, given that normally vehicles would have a longer line of sight to the crossing up the ramp, and the Van did manage to stop.
This road has a 60mph limit, junctions in close proximity at either end limiting approach speed and a straight line of sight from those junctions to the signals, how long do you think is needed to react and bring yourself to a safe stop?
A vehicle already at a stand when the orange light comes back on should not need as much warning as a vehicle approaching at 60mph.

In a select number of posts there seems to be a suggestion that the railway is going out of it's way to somehow 'dress up' this incident, and that the lorry driver was not unreasonable in his/her actions. I find this odd because 1. this is a forum of people interested in rail and 2. Running the lights at a level crossing is quite possibly the most selfish action you can take behind the wheel of a car, in the same bracket as driving drunk. You are deliberately putting potentially hundreds of lives at risk, and risk ruining the journeys of thousands more and costing NR (and by extension the taxpayer/farepayer) 6 or 7 figures. All for the sake of an extra 2-3 minutes, which will usually be spent waiting at the next junction down the road for a net zero gain in journey time.
NR has neither interest in making nor need to make incidents more severe than they are - they have to deal with the tragic consequences at level crossings far too often. Had there been a fault with the crossing, the RAIB would have said so - as they did for an AHB crossing about a year ago where the barriers raised immediately PRIOR to a train crossing over, and a fatal collision was avoided by 0.25 seconds.

Is there any standard length of time between:
- The orange lights illuminating and the red lights flashing?
- The red lights starting to flash and the barriers lowering?

Also, how does a signaller/crossing controller know that the lights have definitely activated if they can't see them on some kind of live camera feed? Is it absolutely impossible for the barriers to lower without the lights going on? How is that impossible? Is it possible for the lights to have a shorter sequence than normal because of some kind of wiring/technological delay? Again, if that's not possible, how and why?

My point is that if a train has just gone and the barriers have just raised, the lights can sometimes stay flashing for a few seconds after the barriers get to the top. But on some crossings the lights stop whilst the barriers are moving, and on some they stop as they start moving and have a random little flash when they get to the top. If the barriers have gone up and the lights have continued to flash then drivers may assume that they’re doing what they sometimes do and they may drive on, only when they continue for an extended period do they realise, ‘we had better stop’ like the van driver.

I’m not sticking up for any of the vehicle drivers, if the lights are flashing you should stop, even if nothing else happens, and this truck didn’t follow that rule if the lights were flashing which I’m sure they will have been (although to comment on a post above, I’m not sure what mechanisms are in place to alert the signaller of a failed lamp and whether this interrupts the sequence or not).


Importantly, being a member of a rail forum does not automatically make you want to stick up for the railway and be an outright hater of trucks and cars and anything else. It isn’t a mandatory tax box when you sign up

robbeech said:

...although to comment on a post above, I’m not sure what mechanisms are in place to alert the signaller of a failed lamp...

Click to expand...

To clarify, I wasn't even thinking of a failed lamp. It would really be a total freak coincidence for 12 bulbs to fail simultaneously.

zwk500 said:

In a select number of posts there seems to be a suggestion that the railway is going out of it's way to somehow 'dress up' this incident, and that the lorry driver was not unreasonable in his/her actions.

Click to expand...

What I find odd is that there are posts here suggesting that somehow it’s the railway’s fault due to some irregularity with the crossing and members making very great efforts to interpret the contents of the video in such a way as to support this notion. What cannot be denied, however, is that this truck driver ran the red lights and tore off the barrier and in no way is that the fault of anyone but himself.

flitwickbeds said:

Is there any standard length of time between:
- The orange lights illuminating and the red lights flashing?
- The red lights starting to flash and the barriers lowering?

Also, how does a signaller/crossing controller know that the lights have definitely activated if they can't see them on some kind of live camera feed? Is it absolutely impossible for the barriers to lower without the lights going on? How is that impossible? Is it possible for the lights to have a shorter sequence than normal because of some kind of wiring/technological delay? Again, if that's not possible, how and why?

Click to expand...

I’ll leave the technical aspects of crossing design and operation to someone else, but from a driver’s perspective I know that the crossing equipment at a controlled crossing is interlocked with the signalling, which is why there are still crossing lights and barriers at the now defunct Ely North crossing. If any aspect of the equipment fails or communication between the crossing equipment and box is lost the protecting signal cannot be cleared. The controlling signaller may then need to authorise the train to pass the signal at danger and proceed at caution, only passing over the crossing if it safe to do so. This is all done automatically through the signalling system, as I mentioned up-thread.

flitwickbeds said:

Is there any standard length of time between:
- The orange lights illuminating and the red lights flashing?
- The red lights starting to flash and the barriers lowering?

Also, how does a signaller/crossing controller know that the lights have definitely activated if they can't see them on some kind of live camera feed? Is it absolutely impossible for the barriers to lower without the lights going on? How is that impossible? Is it possible for the lights to have a shorter sequence than normal because of some kind of wiring/technological delay? Again, if that's not possible, how and why?

Click to expand...

Yes there are minimum times within the sequence.

The lights and barriers are proved; if either fail the crossing shows as failed and the signaller cannot clear signals.

flitwickbeds said:

To clarify, I wasn't even thinking of a failed lamp. It would really be a total freak coincidence for 12 bulbs to fail simultaneously.

Click to expand...

It is not worth considering this possibility it’s ludicrous (though it would only have to be 4 red ones on the far side). I was talking in general whether this sort of thing interactively alerts the signaller or if they wait for an NR person to test periodically.

robbeech said:

I was talking in general whether this sort of thing interactively alerts the signaller...

Click to expand...

Yes they do, as has been confirmed already.

O L Leigh said:

What I find odd is that there are posts here suggesting that somehow it’s the railway’s fault due to some irregularity with the crossing and members making very great efforts to interpret the contents of the video in such a way as to support this notion. What cannot be denied, however, is that this truck driver ran the red lights and tore off the barrier and in no way is that the fault of anyone but himself.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure anyone has suggested it’s the railway’s fault, but the thread is awash with the usual ‘The railways are perfect and can do no wrong’ posts from people unwilling to even consider that the situation, there, on the day may not have been exactly as it seems, or crucially, not exactly as they would like it to be. I don’t think any of it could possibly make the actions anyone’s fault but that of the lorry driver, but different circumstances and situations could give people a clearer understanding of WHY they did what they did. it seems the 2 or 3 people that aren’t quite so ‘perfect railway’ focussed here are just wanting to know why it happened rather than try to shift the blame.

Bald Rick said:

Red traffic lights can be passed in certain circumstances, e.g. by emergency vehicles or by non-emergency vehicles that need to move out of the way of an emergency vehicle behind them.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is the case. Yes, you should try to move out of the way, but I'm not sure if that could technically be illegal, i.e. passing a red light. Certainly traffic cameras are not forgiving.

Level crossing equipment is effectively part of the signalling system, and therefore has the same level of safety integrity. Failures of crossing equipment are treated the same as failures of signalling equipment, and a wrong side failure (such as lights / barriers etc not operating correctly or for the correct time) are treated very, very seriously. Most if not all highway level crossings have data logging equipment that records all the actions of the crossing equipment at all times. The barriers have sensitive detectors built in such that if they are out of alignment in any dimension they will fail. (This is a problem in high winds as you might imagine).

I can speak from personal experience, that whenever there is an incident at a level crossing involving a collision between a train and something on the crossing, there is a horrible wait of a couple of hours whilst the techs get out there to test the equipment and check the datalogger download to see what happened.

Now it is true to say that the railway isn’t perfect and rarely, very rarely, there are wrong side failures at level crossings, most of which are human error by the controlling signaller or crossing keeper. It is also true to say that I have no doubt that the techs will have downloaded the logger for this incident within an hour or so of it happening, and if there was any suggestion that athe crossing equipment did not perform as designed then the footage would not have been released.

What I find interesting about this incident is that it has resulted in so much debate. If you spend time looking at any busy highway crossing you will see drivers jumping the lights regularly, and pedestrians jumping the barriers. I’ve seen countless vehicles trapped under lowering barriers, barriers taken off, and in my younger days repaired some myself. It happens all over the network, every day.

MotCO said:

I'm not sure that is the case. Yes, you should try to move out of the way, but I'm not sure if that could technically be illegal, i.e. passing a red light. Certainly traffic cameras are not forgiving.

Click to expand...

Traffic cameras may not be forgiving, but if this was pursued in a court of law you would be acquitted, and therefore deemed not to have done anything illegal.

Bald Rick said:

They mean different things.

Red traffic lights can be passed in certain circumstances, e.g. by emergency vehicles or by non-emergency vehicles that need to move out of the way of an emergency vehicle behind them.

Red flashing lights must not be passed under any circumstances unless directed by an authorised person.

Click to expand...

You're wrong in part. A non-emergency vehicle cannot pass red lights under any circumstances unless directed by a Police officer. Even if they need to allow an emergency vehicle through.

Red flashing lights also cannot be passed by emergency vehicles, or by a Police officer, or any person directed to do so by one.

robbeech said:

I’m not sure anyone has suggested it’s the railway’s fault, but the thread is awash with the usual ‘The railways are perfect and can do no wrong’ posts from people unwilling to even consider that the situation, there, on the day may not have been exactly as it seems, or crucially, not exactly as they would like it to be. I don’t think any of it could possibly make the actions anyone’s fault but that of the lorry driver, but different circumstances and situations could give people a clearer understanding of WHY they did what they did. it seems the 2 or 3 people that aren’t quite so ‘perfect railway’ focussed here are just wanting to know why it happened rather than try to shift the blame.

Click to expand...

I'm more than sufficiently close to the industry to know that things are not always perfect. What is causing me the consternation is that the actions of various drivers featured in this clip are being used to infer things about the operation of the crossing, and that is not adequately supported by the evidence. I would suggest that it is more than likely that the sudden abrupt stop by the white van could have been a result of the driver considering running the crossing too but backing out at the last minute. It's also just as likely that that's just the way he drives, by braking hard to an abrupt stop. In this respect, the behaviour is not so very different from a lot of other drivers and their actions when confronted with a level crossing, examples of which I see almost daily from my office window.

To give you an example: Dimmocks Cote is an AHB crossing on a 75mph section of line between Ely and Waterbeach. It's a straight section of track and the road on both sides of the railway is unobstructed giving a perfect view of traffic approaching. It's almost de rigeur that drivers will accelerate towards the crossing when they see that a train is approaching and often won't stop until the barriers start to lower. This means that at least some of them have ignored the amber light and jumped the red lights in order to make it across. I'm just waiting for someone to get it wrong.

My point being that if something had been wrong with the crossing this would have been discovered and, as @Bald Rick says, the truck driver would not have been publicly shamed in this way. Trying to infer details of the crossing's operation from this clip simply isn't possible.

robbeech said:

I’m not sure anyone has suggested it’s the railway’s fault, but the thread is awash with the usual ‘The railways are perfect and can do no wrong’ posts from people unwilling to even consider that the situation, there, on the day may not have been exactly as it seems, or crucially, not exactly as they would like it to be.

Click to expand...

As I hinted above, if there was even the slightest hint that the crossing had not performed exactly as intended the RAIB would have been informed. Level Crossings are recognised as one of the biggest risks on the network and therefore any incident is treated extremely seriously, as @Bald Rick has explained above. Part of this is an independent investigation, as well as NR and TOC's own. If NR don't inform the RAIB, there would be a far more serious discussion so it's in NR's own interest to do so.

This incident shows how NR, the TOC and RAIB react when a crossing doesn't behave as it should.

Bald Rick said:

What I find interesting about this incident is that it has resulted in so much debate. If you spend time looking at any busy highway crossing you will see drivers jumping the lights regularly, and pedestrians jumping the barriers. I’ve seen countless vehicles trapped under lowering barriers, barriers taken off, and in my younger days repaired some myself. It happens all over the network, every day.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the question should be why aren't more incidents generating as much debate? This is a serious incident, and it is down to good staff awarness and equipment design that nobody was hurt - and the lorry came very close to clipping the van, which would potentially have left it stranded on the crossing whilst the van reversed. You are absolutely right it is far from an isolated incident, which is why I think LX misuse/abuse should be dealt with very seriously by penalty points and fines.

flitwickbeds said:

I still think there's something odd about this.

Click to expand...

Me too, it all seems too happen to quickly compared to standard timings.

For those who think all is perfect on the rail side, we only have to look at the new trains in East Anglia (engineering change needed); the Elsenham fatalities (NR fined a huge amount, procedures changed); the Athelney, near Taunton, fatal (non-standard operation following overnight track work, procedures changed). I've written enough about that last one here previously.

Taunton said:

Me too, it all seems too happen to quickly compared to standard timings.

Click to expand...

What are the standard timings? How can you be sure that the timings of this crossing incident are wrong? The warning lights cannot be seen from such a high camera angle, as has been described above, so you cannot tell when or for how long they operated.

Taunton said:

For those who think all is perfect on the rail side, we only have to look at the new trains in East Anglia (engineering change needed); the Elsenham fatalities (NR fined a huge amount, procedures changed); the Athelney, near Taunton, fatal (non-standard operation following overnight track work, procedures changed). I've written enough about that last one here previously.

Click to expand...

Yup, but there is a crucial difference here. All of those incidents were down to provable problems and issues with rail equipment. This was not. There has been no provable problem with this crossing and attempting to interpret the video to support this notion is unsupported by the evidence contained within the video.

Even though the crossing behaved correctly this should be looked at to find out why the driver behaved as he did.

Particularly important is finding out what, if anything, made him believe it was safe to cross.

If he made an incorrect assumption then it needs to be known about in order to sii what mitigation actions can be taken to avoid it happening again

The Manningtree incident reminds one of the classic 1986 "The Guardian" newspaper TV advert. Sometimes it's difficult to draw conclusions from just the one perspective.

philthetube said:

Even though the crossing behaved correctly this should be looked at to find out why the driver behaved as he did.

Particularly important is finding out what, if anything, made him believe it was safe to cross.

If he made an incorrect assumption then it needs to be known about in order to sii what mitigation actions can be taken to avoid it happening again

Click to expand...

Totally Agreed.

I think that all relevant authorities (Police, Highways and Rail) should look at whether mitigation is possible by targeted penalty rather than passive mitigation of strengthening the crossing. It's worth a thought that reducing the risk irresponsible users pose to the crossing might make expensive works redundant, as the risk has been mitigated in a different way. This would allow those crossings which do pose a risk to responsible users to have enhancements funded quicker, or for the funding to be completely reallocated to projects like Access For All.

O L Leigh said:

The warning lights cannot be seen from such a high camera angle, as has been described above, so you cannot tell when or for how long they operated.

Click to expand...

You're right. We cannot tell.

Now, how can Network Rail tell?

philthetube said:

Even though the crossing behaved correctly this should be looked at to find out why the driver behaved as he did.

Particularly important is finding out what, if anything, made him believe it was safe to cross.

If he made an incorrect assumption then it needs to be known about in order to sii what mitigation actions can be taken to avoid it happening again

Click to expand...

This is exactly my point, WHY did they do what they did and can we reduce the risk of it happening again, especially if it is a crossing where this sort of thing (without the damage) happens a lot. It seems some aren't interested in this bit though sadly.

flitwickbeds said:

You're right. We cannot tell.

Now, how can Network Rail tell?

Click to expand...

It has been mentioned above that there are systems in place that will prohibit the sequence from continuing as normal should there be a fault like a lamp failure.

flitwickbeds said:

You're right. We cannot tell.

Now, how can Network Rail tell?

Click to expand...

This has already been answered for you.

Bald Rick said:

Level crossing equipment is effectively part of the signalling system, and therefore has the same level of safety integrity. Failures of crossing equipment are treated the same as failures of signalling equipment, and a wrong side failure (such as lights / barriers etc not operating correctly or for the correct time) are treated very, very seriously. Most if not all highway level crossings have data logging equipment that records all the actions of the crossing equipment at all times. The barriers have sensitive detectors built in such that if they are out of alignment in any dimension they will fail. (This is a problem in high winds as you might imagine).

I can speak from personal experience, that whenever there is an incident at a level crossing involving a collision between a train and something on the crossing, there is a horrible wait of a couple of hours whilst the techs get out there to test the equipment and check the datalogger download to see what happened.

Click to expand...

---

robbeech said:

This is exactly my point, WHY did they do what they did and can we reduce the risk of it happening again, especially if it is a crossing where this sort of thing (without the damage) happens a lot. It seems some aren't interested in this bit though sadly.

Click to expand...

I would say that the most common reason for crossings being abused in this way is people taking chances with the lights. You won't encounter any falling barriers if you respect the traffic signal lights and stop when you see flashing red lights. There have been issues with people who regularly use the same crossings becoming perhaps a little too blase about them and are more likely to take risks.

Personally I'd like to see targeted penalties for offenders using red light cameras that will provide evidential records of offences.

flitwickbeds said:

You're right. We cannot tell.

Now, how can Network Rail tell?

Click to expand...

If there was any issue with the crossing, then the data tapes by Telecoms/CCT in the signalling centre (is it Colchester IECC thar controls Manningtree?) would have flagged this.

Bow Fell said:

If there was any issue with the crossing, then the data tapes by Telecoms/CCT in the signalling centre (is it Colchester IECC thar controls Manningtree?) would have flagged this.

Click to expand...

Colchester ASC.

robbeech said:

This is exactly my point, WHY did they do what they did and can we reduce the risk of it happening again, especially if it is a crossing where this sort of thing (without the damage) happens a lot. It seems some aren't interested in this bit though sadly.

Click to expand...

As @O L Leigh says, in almost all cases it’s because of driver inattention or a wilful attempt to beat the barriers. Very few are due to any inherent or temporary fault with the crossing equipment; and in every single case of such an incident all the equipment is checked and tested for such faults.

And as I have said, this kind of incident happens multiple times, every day.

The way to stop it is enforcement cameras, or closing the LX permanently.

The way to stop it is enforcement cameras, or closing the LX permanently.

I agree.

Might I say that forensic analysis of video footage is a very skilled and technical job. I am not such a person and really wouldn't like to comment apart from the one that I placed up thread which was a bit of a fag packet look!

More generally

14xxDave said:

The way to stop it is enforcement cameras, or closing the LX permanently.

Click to expand...

Before we start closing the main A137 from Harwich to Ipswich (this is not a country lane) let us look at the infrastructure.

Like Ely (and some others on the old GER territory) this has an adjacent "rathole" underbridge for road traffic, with a height of 9'6", and the crossing alongside for large vehicles. The underbridge is, for an A road, decidedly substandard, only being one lane wide with no traffic controls, which can lead to some interesting standoffs. The bridge girders on both sides are smashed from overheight vehicle strikes https://www.google.com/maps/@51.948...4!1s0ucOjdWF757yF3kuY_8f2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 .

Now somehow in the century since motor vehicles became commonplace, and rail service stepped up from a rural main line to near-metro frequency, nothing has been done about this substandard anachronism. I see above it is said, despite there already being an underpass alongside, that one is impractical, due to a nearby river. This has not stopped the rail operators building a multi-storey car park at the adjacent station which, unlike most, has the ground at its top level, and is excavated down into the ground beneath https://www.google.com/maps/@51.948...4!1s0ucOjdWF757yF3kuY_8f2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 . I'm sure they have adequate drainage arrangements on the bottom floor, whether by automatic pumps or whatever, and the overall structure size is a multiple of what would be required for a proper road underpass. It seems there was investment money for this car park, but not for a main road underpass.

Bald Rick said:

Traffic cameras may not be forgiving, but if this was pursued in a court of law you would be acquitted, and therefore deemed not to have done anything illegal.

Click to expand...

That's not what the RAC says.

This article states that if you drive through a red light to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle you could still be penalised.