Indeed not - we shouldn't ever authorise users to pass the wigwags at an AHB, only explain that it's failed and advise them to find an alternative route. It's widely stated that this is covered in legislation somewhere, but I'm not sure whether that's actually the case or whether it's just covered by the signalling regs. I'm equally unsure whether it also applies at an MCB crossing, or a CCTV crossing under local control, as the regs make no mention of it!
Hmm.
I wonder where that came from then, I've heard it from a few sources.
Perhaps it's that a local crossing attendant can authorise it but not a remote signaller? (Clutching at straws)
I can only find one reference in the signalling regs (relating specifically to motorists phoning in from AHBs) and nothing at all in the handbook for level crossing attendants - so nothing stopping us waving motorists across an MCB with, say, one barrier failed down or a level crossing attendant doing likewise at an AHB under local control. I can't really see any great issues in either case anyway. What I'm not sure about is the Highways Regulations - any chance of a link to the relevant part please?It applies to ALL crossings.
Covered by both Highway Regulations and Signalling Rules.
Thanks John - I've not had chance to find the relevant details, but from the general content I gather that this refers to the road user's obligation to obey the wigwags rather than any prohibition on signalmen or crossing attendants calling (or trying to) road users past flashing wigwags?There are two requirements - one in the Road Traffic Act is for the driver to obey signs and signals and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions - a Statutory Instrument - defines the signs and signals to be obeyed. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ to access these items.
Possibly an interesting contradiction - but equally possibly intended to refer to user worked crossings, perhaps?https://www.btp.police.uk/advice_and_information/travelling_safely/level_crossing_safety.aspx
"Only cross when the barriers are fully raised and the lights go off, or when you are granted permission by an operator"
Correct - although I understand that they could, until relatively recently, do so under the signalman's instruction. I can't find anything to support that though, or anything that prevents them from doing so nowadays - other than the clause in the signalling regs that we must not authorise road users to cross until an attendant arrives.I'm having a look to find the relevant Act covering this, but found that.
I know that a police office cannot authorise passing wigwags...
Definitely correct....and that you cannot treat them as give way when under blue lights.
Interesting - where's that exactly? Can't find anything in the handbook for level crossing attendants, so presumably you're referring to something else.Edit:
Found this from the Level Crossing Attendant leaflet from Network Rail
"If the red road lights continue to operate whilst the barriers are raised and there are no trains approaching, the crossing attendant MUST NOT give road traffic permission to cross over the level crossing"
The plot thickens?
That's what I'm slightly puzzled about - it seems well established that a police officer can't direct road traffic to pass the wigwags (but is that just at level crossings?), but it doesn't necessarily follow that the member of railway staff operating the crossing can't do it either - the latter is, of course, in a better position to do so safely.Edit 2:
John, traffic laws often have an "unless directed to do so by a constable in uniform" clause. That's the key point here - is there an "unless directed to do so by railway staff" clause out there anywhere
The RAIB has published its report which may be accessed from http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2014/report062014.cfm
...
At 11:44 hrs on Tuesday 16 July 2013 a collision occurred between a passenger train and a farm trailer at Buttington Hall farm crossing near Welshpool on the line between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth. The tractor driver and two other people nearby sustained minor injuries and two passengers on the train were injured and taken to hospital, but were discharged later that day.
The train involved was operated by Arriva Trains Wales and consisted of two 2-car units. It was travelling at 120 km/h (75 mph) at the time of the collision. The train was running from Birmingham International to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli and there were 140 passengers and two crew members on board. On the day of the accident, the farm crossing was being used by tractors bringing in a harvest from fields on the opposite side of the line to the farm. The farmer had appointed a contractor to carry out the harvesting operation, and an attendant had been provided at the crossing to phone the signaller and operate the gates.
The accident occurred because the system of work in use at the crossing was inherently unsafe, leading to ineffective control of road vehicle movements over the crossing and frequent use of the crossing without the signaller being contacted. This system broke down. There were also underlying management factors:
- the harvest contractor did not implement an effective safe system of work at the crossing;
- Network Rail’s process for risk assessment of these types of crossing did not adequately deal with periods of intensive use; and
- Network Rail’s instructions to users of these crossings did not cover periods of intensive use.
The RAIB has made three recommendations:
- main line infrastructure managers should improve the risk assessment process at these crossings to take into account the increased risk during periods of intensive use;
- main line infrastructure managers should define safe and practical methods of working to be adopted at these crossings during periods of intensive use; and
- RSSB should update the level crossing risk management toolkit to reflect the changes brought about by the second recommendation.
The RAIB has also noted a learning point from an observation made during the investigation concerning the prolonged closure of an adjacent level crossing on a main road after the accident.
A tractor driver has been cleared of endangering the safety of train passengers and crew after a crash in Mid Wales.
Ifan Gwyn Evans, 28, of Penyffordd, Llanfyllin, had pleaded not guilty at an earlier hearing but appeared at Mold Crown Court to set a new trial date yesterday.
A trial was due to be held involving him and a co-defendant this week but it was taken out due to a lack of court time.
But the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence against Evans during yesterday’s hearing and Judge Niclas Parry recorded a formal not guilty verdict.
Co-defendant John Elwyn Roberts, 74, of Oldford Rise, Welshpool, denied the same charge and he will stand trial at a date to be set in December.
A PENSIONER who is charged with endangering the safety of train passengers has seen his case adjourned.
...
... Roberts was taken out of the court list due to the defendant’s ill-health and he will now appear on July 13
A mention hearing will take place in March so that applications by the defence can be dealt with, together with final trial arrangements.
An update from http://www.newsnorthwales.co.uk/news/143342/train-crash-charges-case-adjourned.aspx for those with an interest in this case
The local farming fraternity are hoping to use the 4 extra trains a day as a reason to extract money out of NR as compensation to build livestock holding pens near the user operated crossings near Welshpool. The local conservative MP and AM are very supportive of this.
Of course they appear oblivious to the fact that more train movements than in the public tt can and do occur especially since etcs was introduced in 2011. One of them got rather upset when it was pointed out how did his parents cope when the line was double track and there were up to 70 movements a day between Welshpool and Buttington Junction on a summer Saturday rather than just 16!
There's generally no need to get the user to call back, or provide signal protection, unless it's a 'large, low or slow moving vehicle' (or animals, or anything with small wheels) - so, whilst there might not quite be a million possibilities, it's perhaps a little unrealistic to try to guess with any expectation of accuracy what's happened. It's surely true that crossing misuse is the cause of most such collisions though?
I always thought that any vehicle using a crossing that calls the box for permission MUST call back that they are clear or trains will be cautioned over the crossing! If this isn't the case it should be!
I always thought that any vehicle using a crossing that calls the box for permission MUST call back that they are clear or trains will be cautioned over the crossing! If this isn't the case it should be!
The local farming fraternity are hoping to use the 4 extra trains a day as a reason to extract money out of NR as compensation to build livestock holding pens near the user operated crossings near Welshpool. The local conservative MP and AM are very supportive of this.
Of course they appear oblivious to the fact that more train movements than in the public tt can and do occur especially since etcs was introduced in 2011. One of them got rather upset when it was pointed out how did his parents cope when the line was double track and there were up to 70 movements a day between Welshpool and Buttington Junction on a summer Saturday rather than just 16!
That used to be the case but apparently its no longer a requirment. I'm sure a signaller on here can back me up on this.
That used to be the case but apparently its no longer a requirment. I'm sure a signaller on here can back me up on this.
Just asked my father (NR signaller), he tells me there is still a call-back requirement.
No, still need to caution trains if they don't phone back see reg 2.1.2That used to be the case but apparently its no longer a requirment. I'm sure a signaller on here can back me up on this.
We only need to apply Reg 2.1.2, ask for a call-back and caution if not received, for large or slow vehicles or anyone crossing with animals. Quite a hoohah locally, and I suspect elsewhere, for quite a while now - there's no formal definition of large or slow, and the higher powers are keen to see fewer vehicles treated as such to minimise delays due to users failing to call back.
I would imagine all political parties would be in favour,always a down side in extreme rural areas like Powys when extra trains will be in use, is the new service eight trains a day? Up & Down. The May timetable is just in time for silage/Hayledge & small bails to cross the line.
I am sure the NFU & FUW will advise members of the new services, but the Farmers are a big lobby group.
No, still need to caution trains if they don't phone back see reg 2.1.2
We only need to apply Reg 2.1.2, ask for a call-back and caution if not received, for large or slow vehicles or anyone crossing with animals. Quite a hoohah locally, and I suspect elsewhere, for quite a while now - there's no formal definition of large or slow, and the higher powers are keen to see fewer vehicles treated as such to minimise delays due to users failing to call back. I tend to agree with those who suggest that it should be a requirement to call back for any vehicle though. The only time that I don't ask for a call-back is when it's a small vehicle (no more than a car) and there's an insufficient margin to provide signal protection (but plenty of time for them to cross safely, of course) and lots of trains around - where the risk of the crossing user getting impatient and making their own decision on when to cross is, I'd suggest, worthy of consideration. Some proper, consistent guidance from the RSSB would be helpful though, I think.
There appear to be definitions of large and slow in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (at the bottom): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/16/made
large: over 18.75m long, 2.9m wide or 44T MGW
slow: up to 5mph
Those definitions agree with the signage I can find on Google (and my somewhat hazy recollection of the signage at a local AHB crossing): https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=level+crossing+large+or+slow+vehicle
That signage only appears in connection with AHBs though, and the definitions are presumably based on the fact that they'd otherwise only have a guaranteed minimum of 27 seconds to get across. User worker crossings are, perhaps obviously, very much different in that respect - it's the signalman's job to establish how long it's going to take for the user to get across (including the performance of opening and closing both gates) and determining whether there's a suitable margin to give them permission to cross. My best guess is that the additional requirements for "large and slow" vehicles (and animals of any size!) in this case are based on the greater probability of something going wrong and the potentially far more severe consequences if it does, set against the risk of an impatient resident in a small-ish car nipping across after being refused permission because there wasn't sufficient time to provide signal protection (but possibly still time to cross safely without signal protection). On that basis, I think the line is far more blurred than at an AHB with a precise minimum warning time to work back from.There appear to be definitions of large and slow in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (at the bottom): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/16/made
large: over 18.75m long, 2.9m wide or 44T MGW
slow: up to 5mph
Those definitions agree with the signage I can find on Google (and my somewhat hazy recollection of the signage at a local AHB crossing): https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=level+crossing+large+or+slow+vehicle
A man has been cleared of a charge of endangering the safety of passengers following a Mid Wales train crash
...
At Mold Crown Court yesterday the prosecution announced that it would offer no evidence against him.
...
Prosecutor Emmalyne Downing said that they had received a lengthy medical report on the defendant.
It was clear that he had a number of health issues and had decided not to proceed any further because of his ill-health.
...