Another lorry through the barriers at Manningtree

[306024]

The traffic control for the underpass is a 'give priority to oncoming traffic' sign for traffic coming from Ipswich.

An underpass 16m deep or whatever the regulation for new A road infrastructure says is the only solution here, one the Dutch, who seem to know all about water tables, would have built years ago.

Of course anyone who actually knows the area will soon grasp how difficult / practical / expensive / impossible that, and any alternative, is.

 

[O L Leigh]

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

The A137 is not the main route from Harwich to Ipswich but rather a rat-run. It may be Google Maps preferred route between the two town centres, but the main route is the A120 and onto the A12 which is far better suited to LGV traffic, the majority of which is not heading into Ipswich but rather towards Ipswich with the intention of picking up the A14. There really should not be any LGV traffic using this route except for local traffic needing to access the Shotley Peninsula.

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 .

I don't disagree that the "rathole" is not an ideal solution. There was one at Hoddesdon (Essex Road) that was replaced by a bridge, although the Ely crossing has now closed in it's entirety since the opening of the southern bypass. However, the city needed this anyway due to the fact that all traffic approaching from the Soham direction had to use this crossing whether it was heading into the city or going on further afield.

I had a quick look at it on StreetView and while there are no lights, there are priority signs through the narrow section. I suppose it might be possible to widen this section to permit two-way traffic which might help to alleviate things slightly, although it doesn't deal with overheight vehicles needing to use the crossing.

Of course you could bypass Manningtree in the way that Ely has been bypassed, but then it already has (see above).

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.

You're being a little disingenuous with your description of the new car park at Manningtree. The new land arrangements are not so much a hole in the ground that can act like a sump, but rather a terrace dug into the side of a slope with a metal parking deck built on top to provide the top floor. This top floor may be at ground level in relation to the station building, but the lower level is the true ground level at the opposite side of the site. As such, no special drainage arrangements would have been required to be provided.

 

[LAX54]

There's just something I don't quite like about this video. The oncoming truck has the barrier drop on it. The truck going the other way seems on barrier timing to have gone through after the sequence should have started as well. The van behind it stops suddenly, well beyond the stop line - if it hadn't done so it would have struck the farside barrier itself. And flashing lights are not visible flashing, on the CCTV set up specifically to monitor them.

The CCTV does NOT monitor the red lights, there is no need, there is an indication on the crossing controls on the workstation that does that. Reds normally stop flashing when the barriers are about half way raised, had the next train 'struck in' then the signaller would have called the route, and the barriers would have stayed lowered of course, there is the option of course to place the crossing 'raise' on manual, and keep them down longer, if there is a train about, but has not struck in, however this gives rise to many complaints from the public about the length of time they (and others) are kept lowered!
The steady yellow was lit before he even started his move Whilst he may well have misjudged the down side boom, there was no excuse at all to smash through the Up side, you can also seen the Signaller pressed stop.

 

[LAX54]

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?

Press 'DOWN' raised light goes out, then a red light comes on inidcating that the reds are flashing, if the red light flashes on the pod, there is a fault with the lights at the crossing, and the required actions are taken

 

[LAX54]

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.

Colchester ASC and no the crossing was / is in full wokring order.

 

[LAX54]

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.

One red out, Signaller is aware

 

[LAX54]

How on earth is a busy location like this apparently allowed to have a single barrier. Somebody needs to explain risk assessments and alarp to Network Rail, Orr?

Road is not wide enough for two, it is perfectly in order to have one each side.

 

[LAX54]

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.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Has the HGV driver been charged with anything yet, if so, what?

Any update on this?

 

[1955LR]

I wonder, looking again , if in fact there was a hold up of traffic and the exit from the crossing blocked, which would explain the second lorry being stationary at the far side of the crossing when the video clip starts. The first tractor unit is moving, the second stationary and the second then follows the first , realises the crossing sequence has started, hesitated then carries on

 

[Llanigraham]

More generally
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.

From experience of having used Manningtree Station car park, the ground level of the lower deck is a lot higher up that the road level of the underbridge.

 

[zwk500]

I wonder, looking again , if in fact there was a hold up of traffic and the exit from the crossing blocked, which would explain the second lorry being stationary at the far side of the crossing when the video clip starts. The first tractor unit is moving, the second stationary and the second then follows the first , realises the crossing sequence has started, hesitated then carries on

The lorry left a large gap behind the tractor-only in front, as if he/she had the handbrake on and was slow to react to the clearing road. In my (admittedly limited) experience driving this is not usual at queues for roundabouts where traffic creeps forward relatively quickly, but is very usual at level crossings where the road is closed for an extended period of time. Of course, the lorry driver may have been queuing for the roundabout when a previous crossing sequence occurred, hence why they didn't wait. But it's just as possible (WILD SPECULATION ALERT) that the lorry driver had a destination near the limits of their tacho hours and didn't want to lose any more time and have to park up. If traffic does back up near to or across the crossing then NR and the Road authority should be making plans to mitigate this risk, but this does not remove the obligation on the driver to stop when the lights go red.

Regardless of why the lorry was where it was, the only question of consequence here is did the lorry have time to stop once the lights activated? The actions of the van suggest that it did. I've remarked upthread about my ideas for encouraging people to obey the law, as its clear that education and warnings haven't convinced enough people that it isn't worth the risk. And if it didn't have time the railway would almost certainly not have released the footage until the RAIB had finished it's business.

 

[Bald Rick]

And if it didn't have time the railway would almost certainly not have released the footage until the RAIB had finished it's business.

I’m not sure quite what you mean, but RAIB don’t get involved in incidents such as this.

 

[eman_resu]

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?

Yes there is. Both timings are provided in NR Standards, along with the time for barriers to lower and other factors. The main timing is the Minimum Warning Time, which is a minimum time the crossing needs for activation and lowering, plus an allowance for the train to enter the crossing. This MWT then has further time added for requirements such as the length of the level crossing, delays in calculation times etc. For multiple track crossings there is also a holding time added so that the barriers do not raise with another train on the approach.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Yes there is. Both timings are provided in NR Standards, along with the time for barriers to lower and other factors. The main timing is the Minimum Warning Time, which is a minimum time the crossing needs for activation and lowering, plus an allowance for the train to enter the crossing. This MWT then has further time added for requirements such as the length of the level crossing, delays in calculation times etc. For multiple track crossings there is also a holding time added so that the barriers do not raise with another train on the approach.

Thanks. Anyone able to divulge the number of seconds the MWT is?

 

[zwk500]

I’m not sure quite what you mean, but RAIB don’t get involved in incidents such as this.

I'll bow to your knowledge on this topic. I meant that if there was a possibility the crossing had not given the warning it was meant to then there would have been an investigation from the railway authorities.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Thanks. Anyone able to divulge the number of seconds the MWT is?

I believe it's at least 27 seconds at an AHB crossing, with a limited exception.

 

[Llanigraham]

I'll bow to your knowledge on this topic. I meant that if there was a possibility the crossing had not given the warning it was meant to then there would have been an investigation from the railway authorities.

There appears to be some confusion here.
As far as I am aware the RAIB are notified of ALL level crossings incidents and investigate all of them to some degree, either to issue a full report or a safety report.

 

[GB]

Thanks. Anyone able to divulge the number of seconds the MWT is?

3 seconds for the Amber, though can be upto 5 seconds.
Once the Amber lights go out the red lights start immediately, 4-6 seconds after the reds come on the barriers start to descend and should be fully down 6-10 seconds. Things can be adjusted for skewed crossings or crossings that have more than two running lines.

There is no minimum arrival time for the train with full barrier crossings like there are with half barrier crossings.

 

[Bald Rick]

There appears to be some confusion here.
As far as I am aware the RAIB are notified of ALL level crossings incidents and investigate all of them to some degree, either to issue a full report or a safety report.

No they aren’t, and no they don’t. If they were notified of every barrier being knocked off, or person trapped inside the barriers, they’d do nothing else.

 

[zwk500]

No they aren’t, and no they don’t. If they were notified of every barrier being knocked off, or person trapped inside the barriers, they’d do nothing else.

Out of interest, if there was a suspicion of crossing failure/malfunction would the RAIB still need to be informed, even if no trains were involved?

 

[flitwickbeds]

3 seconds for the Amber, though can be upto 5 seconds.
Once the Amber lights go out the red lights start immediately, 4-6 seconds after the reds come on the barriers start to descend and should be fully down 6-10 seconds. Things can be adjusted for skewed crossings or crossings that have more than two running lines.

There is no minimum arrival time for the train with full barrier crossings like there are with half barrier crossings.

So... If ambers are on for 3 seconds, barriers start to descend after 4 seconds, and are at the point of touching a HGV on their way down after maybe 2 or 3 seconds, that's just 10 seconds.

From a total stop, do we think that's enough for a HGV to cross?

Presumably the Amber means the same thing legally as yellow traffic lights - if you've crossed the line already, or braking would put you over the line when you come to a stop, then you can continue?

 

[GB]

So... If ambers are on for 3 seconds, barriers start to descend after 4 seconds, and are at the point of touching a HGV on their way down after maybe 2 or 3 seconds, that's just 10 seconds.

From a total stop, do we think that's enough for a HGV to cross?

Presumably the Amber means the same thing legally as yellow traffic lights - if you've crossed the line already, or braking would put you over the line when you come to a stop, then you can continue?

Not for me to say whether there is enough time to cross or not (though 1000's of lorries seem to cope every day)...but there was certainly enough time to stop before ramming into the first barrier.

 

[Bald Rick]

Out of interest, if there was a suspicion of crossing failure/malfunction would the RAIB still need to be informed, even if no trains were involved?

No, unless there was an accident or very nearly so.

 

[robbeech]

3 seconds for the Amber, though can be upto 5 seconds.

I wonder if there is a variance between the 3 and 5 mph based upon the road speed limit. In some countries the amber phase time of road traffic lights will vary depending on road speed. Now I thought I’d once read that we had this in the UK too but having looked to try and confirm I can only find contradictory evidence so I must have either made it up or read something by someone else making it up.

 

[ashkeba]

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.

Has it and what was the reasoning? I think the prosecutors would decline it as not in the public interest to prosecute.

This is why you should stop well behind the line to give yourself room to move aside, but it seems mainly foreigners who do this, probably because if you drive right up to the line in many junctions in France, Belgium or the Netherlands, then you cannot see the light faces. The British near-total use of lights on the far side of junctions encourages people to cross the line in several ways.

Edit: do British level crossings have far side lights or are they unusual for the UK?

 

[Wolfie]

My point is its intrinsically less safe than a four barrier system that lets traffic exit the crossing before the wrong side barrier is lowered.
If for reasons of location that cant be achieved I would say this type of barrier needs to be fitted with obstacle detection technology that prevents the lowering of the barrier until the crossing is clear.
If the train is slowed down or stopped by adverse signals well I'm afraid that's the nature of increasing congestion.

So basically what you are saying is that incompetent road drivers who are at fault should be protected regardless even if that means that the railway can no longer properly operate at all.

 

[zwk500]

From a total stop, do we think that's enough for a HGV to cross?

Why does the HGV have to be given enough time to cross from a total stop? It only needs enough warning to come to a stand before crossing the line, surely?

Also I will point out that in the video the green-tarpaulin lorry heading away from the camera is able to cross safely, and the HGV that struck the barriers is 2nd in line (at least). So the crossing *definitely* gave safe time for an HGV to clear the crossing. I feel at this point that the alternative explanations have been explored to the point of exhaustion, although I appreciate your determination to absolve the driver of total fault. Sadly, it appears that the driver had the opportunity to stop safely and chose not to.

 

[LAX54]

As I said above, it is clearly visible- it bounces off the top of the trailer. It isn't damaged because it hit the top of a curtain trailer instead of having a tractor unit plough right through it.

It was damaged, severely and beyond any type of repair.

 

[Meerkat]

Would the LC datalogs be enough for a prosecution when the lights aren’t on the video?
The driver could insist the lights werent red and the datalogger And camera were out of sync.
I am pondering this thinking of the latest motorway variable speed cameras that have a separate camera that videos the whole scene, proving what the signs showed and when they changed.

I have two scenarios for what happened. The ‘nicer’ one is that the driver was so intent on watching and waiting for enough space on the other side to be clear that he forgot to recheck the lights and got caught out not expecting them to go red again so quickly. The worse version is that he was on his phone, suddenly realised the truck in front had gone and started off before checking the lights. Both still Involve him going “oh it’s red, stop, sod it - already across the line may as well go”