Ban on building level crossings

[TT-ONR-NRN]

While not the most reliable of sources, Wikipedia says on an article about Level Crossings in the UK that there is now a ban on building any more.

Surely this is not always practical? A bridge requires the road to be raised significantly; a tunnel requires digging under the railway. Say a new line is built, how else does it cross an important road if said raising or lowering of the road is not feasible for a respective bridge or tunnel there?

Are crossings deemed too unsafe now, even those with full barriers and CCTV? The amount of misuse is admittedly shocking, but could surely be reduced significantly with increased penalties and sanctions, and better protection such as more full length barriers, CCTV, louder alarms, better signage, etc.

Also, are full length barriers always better than half ones? With half ones only blocking the entrance, you can escape should you find yourself on the crossing when the barriers lower - whereas a full one will trap. Yes, the risk of being trapped might deter people from chancing it - but inevitably some stupid people will always chance it, and I’d rather them escape and then face the slap on the wrist than die for the crime.

 

[Crossover]

While not the most reliable of sources, Wikipedia says on an article about Level Crossings in the UK that there is now a ban on building any more.

Surely this is not always practical? A bridge requires the road to be raised significantly; a tunnel requires digging under the railway. Say a new line is built, how else does it cross an important road if said raising or lowering of the road is not feasible for a respective bridge or tunnel there?

I think there may be a shred of truth in it. Before it went under, I visited (to drive) the Elsecar Heritage Railway, and they have recentlyish (last few years) extended the line across a road (there is an active LC near the station, too)

They mentioned that the extension is barely used, except in rare and very controlled circumstances, due to issues with the one of the safety bodies not signing off the (re?)introduction of a LC.

Regarding new lines, I think the costs of tunnels/bridges is built into the costs? I can't recall any recent openings/reopenings that have LC's on them?

 

[jfowkes]

A lot of the problem people round here (rural Cambridgeshire) have with East West Rail is the large embankments parts of it will be built on, which I believe is almost entirely in order to cross roads.

LCs might be a cheaper capital cost than a bridge, but the maintenance cost of a bridge is far lower, basically just inspections every so often. So apart from the safety case, there's a pretty good financial case for them too.

 

[najaB]

While not the most reliable of sources, Wikipedia says on an article about Level Crossings in the UK that there is now a ban on building any more.

As far as I am aware, there isn't a ban per-se but rather a presumption against them. Meaning that designers of schemes should assume that they won't be given permission for a new level crossing and so shouldn't include them in any plans. The exception would be where every other solutions was prohibitively expensive.

Also, are full length barriers always better than half ones? With half ones only blocking the entrance, you can escape should you find yourself on the crossing when the barriers lower - whereas a full one will trap. Yes, the risk of being trapped might deter people from chancing it - but inevitably some stupid people will always chance it, and I’d rather them escape and then face the slap on the wrist than die for the crime.

Yes. Because full barriers are, almost always, monitored meaning that the protecting signal won't come off until the crossing is proved clear - either by a local signal box, CCTV or object detection. Half barrier crossings aren't monitored for precisely the reason you mentioned.

 

[D365]

A lot of the problem people round here (rural Cambridgeshire) have with East West Rail is the large embankments parts of it will be built on, which I believe is almost entirely in order to cross roads.

You say that, but the St Neots ”Mayor” has campaigned against EWR simply because it will cause noise pollution for 10,000 houses that haven’t been built yet.

Say a new line is built, how else does it cross an important road if said raising or lowering of the road is not feasible for a respective bridge or tunnel there?

Are crossings deemed too unsafe now, even those with full barriers and CCTV?

Yes.

The line goes elsewhere, or the road gets diverted.

 

[Bald Rick]

The amount of misuse is admittedly shocking, but could surely be reduced significantly with increased penalties and sanctions, and better protection such as more full length barriers, CCTV, louder alarms, better signage, etc.

Problems at level crossings are not always misuse. See the recent incident in Anglia where a car waiting at the crossing was hit by a second at that had skidded on black ice and an unfortunate lady found herself through the barriers with a train bearing down. Fortunately she escaped, and the train was not badly damaged. However as Ufton Nervet and Great Heck have proved, when a train hits a vehicle on the track the results can be fatal.

 

[midland1]

I have a feeling that level crossings have been band on main line railways since the 1890s ( the GCR line to London had none). You could only have them on light railways ie the Welshpool and Llanfair built in the early 1900s. Sorry could not find the act, but a have read it sometime

 

[Horizon22]

I can't see any particular reason that there would need to be any new ones, as the safety case is just too much when other options can be explored. The ones that already exist are - where possible - looking to be removed. If there's suddenly some need for a new crossing under/over the railway (for instance a new residential development), then it would be a bridge or underpass anyway. 99% of the current connections over the railway at a flat crossing have been around for decades, if not centuries.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have a feeling that level crossings have been band on main line railways since the 1890s ( the GCR line to London had none). You could only have them on light railways ie the Welshpool and Llanfair built in the early 1900s. Sorry could not find the act, but a have read it sometime

There’s been a handful of new road crossings in the past 20-30 years, most (in)famously at Littleport bypass and Downham Market bypass on the fen line, built in the late 80s IIRC.

But nothing in the last decade or so on the national network that I’m aware of.

 

[snowball]

I think the Gobowen-Oswestry line was still carrying occasional freight in 1986 when the Oswestry bypass was opened, including two new level crossings on the line, one on the A5 trunk road and one on the A483 trunk road. But that's 35 years ago, and the line was not seen as having much future.

There's probably a thread somewhere listing level crossings created in relatively recent times.

I believe the proposed reopening of the Portishead branch involves moving the terminus a short distance eastward to cut out a level crossing.

 

[tspaul26]

I have recently been dealing with this topic for a client. There is no ‘ban’ as such in strictly legal terms, but there is a strong regulatory policy against new level crossings and (where relevant) in favour of the removal of existing specimens unless this would not be proportionate.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am sure there is already a de facto ban. Unsure if it is de iure.

 

[Jozhua]

Like others have said, level crossings are expensive to operate for the level of safety we want to provide, so there's no point in building them in the present day.

Of course, if you want lots of level crossings for a cheaper/more convenient alignment, then light rail is your option, as these don't even need to have barriers!

The UK has never been a big one for level crossings anyway, indeed I'd hazard a guess we've probably got the least level crossings per track kilometer, even compared to our European neighbors!

 

[Annetts key]

The trouble is, who decides which is safer?

I’ve seen the results of a road vehicle hitting a bridge parapet wall. The wall was made of stone, and a significant amount fell onto the track below…

It’s just as well there was no train passing at the time.

Full barrier level crossings are normally very safe. Yes, the operating and maintenance cost of a full barrier crossing over time will add up. But then all the engineering work to build a bridge and the embankments is not exactly cheap either. And as normally no, or minimal maintenance (apart from inspections) is carried out on bridges, when a significant defect is discovered, it often means a new bridge deck is required (along with strengthening of the supports). Which is also not cheap.

Meanwhile no one appears to care about the number of motorists jumping red traffic lights on our road network. Hence it’s not really surprising that motorists also jump red lights and red flashing at level crossings.

So the authorities don’t really care that much about road safety unless it’s a quick and easy win (like making it extremely hard for a new level crossing to be constructed or an existing site of a previous level crossing to be reinstated).

 

[najaB]

I’ve seen the results of a road vehicle hitting a bridge parapet wall. The wall was made of stone, and a significant amount fell onto the track below…

I doubt many new stone parapet walls are built these days. They'll be reinforced concrete, with a steel armco barrier on the inside if there's a high risk of impact.

 

[edwin_m]

LCs might be a cheaper capital cost than a bridge, but the maintenance cost is far lower, basically just inspections every so often. So apart from the safety case, there's a pretty good financial case for them too.

Just to be clear, I think you're saying that the operating and maintenance cost is lower for a bridge. I'd agree with that.

I doubt many new stone parapet walls are built these days. They'll be reinforced concrete, with a steel armco barrier on the inside if there's a high risk of impact.

Indeed. Standards for parapet strength have increased over the years, after several incidents where bits of the parapet landed on the track and one where a cement truck landed on the roof of a passing train. The new and upgraded ones on the East West Rail thread are examples.

 

[Meole]

I think the Gobowen-Oswestry line was still carrying occasional freight in 1986 when the Oswestry bypass was opened, including two new level crossings on the line, one on the A5 trunk road and one on the A483 trunk road. But that's 35 years ago, and the line was not seen as having much future.

There's probably a thread somewhere listing level crossings created in relatively recent times.

I believe the proposed reopening of the Portishead branch involves moving the terminus a short distance eastward to cut out a level crossing.

The heritage railway is unable to bring them back into use as the line became inactive.

 

[Steptoe]

When the Aylsham (Norfolk) bypass was built an AOCL was installed where this crossed the freight branch from Lenwade concrete works to Wroxham (this branch utilised the Themelthorpe curve which is probably the last new track laid in East Anglia) Presumably the costs of doing anything else and the infrequency of train movements (no more than two a day) was why this was permitted.

Though I remember seeing the light posts I believe they were never used to pass a train as the line was mothballed by that time (early 1980's?)

The relevance to this thread is that when the Bure Valley Railway was built on the trackbed between Aylsham they could have simply reactivated this crossing but it was decreed, and I'm not sure by whom, that the 15" stock would not fare well in any collision with road traffic and a new tunnel, which incidentally is now the only active one in Norfolk, was constructed. Obviously the necessary gradients were easier to achieve with narrow gauge rather than standard gauge.

 

[jfowkes]

Just to be clear, I think you're saying that the operating and maintenance cost is lower for a bridge. I'd agree with that.

Yes, my post was a bit unclear, reading it back. Edited for clarity.

 

[edwin_m]

The relevance to this thread is that when the Bure Valley Railway was built on the trackbed between Aylsham they could have simply reactivated this crossing but it was decreed, and I'm not sure by whom, that the 15" stock would not fare well in any collision with road traffic

Such concern would appear to be justified. The Romney Hythe and Dymchurch had two drivers killed in separate accidents hitting cars. Such a collision probably wouldn't injure the occupants of a standard gauge train (HGVs are a different matter) but narrow gauge trains are more prone to overturning, and the driver is much lower down.

 

[sannox]

The Alloa line rebuilding saw a number of level crossings rebuilt which came into use in 2008.

 

[najaB]

The Alloa line rebuilding saw a number of level crossings rebuilt which came into use in 2008.

Was the line completely closed though, or simply out of use?

 

[quantinghome]

The trouble is, who decides which is safer?

I’ve seen the results of a road vehicle hitting a bridge parapet wall. The wall was made of stone, and a significant amount fell onto the track below…

It’s just as well there was no train passing at the time.

Full barrier level crossings are normally very safe. Yes, the operating and maintenance cost of a full barrier crossing over time will add up. But then all the engineering work to build a bridge and the embankments is not exactly cheap either. And as normally no, or minimal maintenance (apart from inspections) is carried out on bridges, when a significant defect is discovered, it often means a new bridge deck is required (along with strengthening of the supports). Which is also not cheap.

Meanwhile no one appears to care about the number of motorists jumping red traffic lights on our road network. Hence it’s not really surprising that motorists also jump red lights and red flashing at level crossings.

So the authorities don’t really care that much about road safety unless it’s a quick and easy win (like making it extremely hard for a new level crossing to be constructed or an existing site of a previous level crossing to be reinstated).

I presume that a crossing on a new or reopened line would be subject to the standard ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) approach enshrined in UK health and safety legislation. To open a new level crossing you would have to demonstrate that the cost of an alternative bridge or underpass was disproportionate to the risk mitigated.

 

[sannox]

Was the line completely closed though, or simply out of use?

It was completely closed in (apparently in 1994) although some track was left. When they did Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine they had to replace a lot of track and indeed the track bed was redone in many places.

 

[Magdalia]

There’s been a handful of new road crossings in the past 20-30 years, most (in)famously at Littleport bypass and Downham Market bypass on the fen line, built in the late 80s IIRC.

In the Fens, bridges across railways have historically been exceptional, most roads cross the railway on the level.

Right up to the 1970s a train going north from Cambridge, after going under Barnwell Bridge, did not pass under another bridge until London Road in Peterborough, a distance of more than 40 miles.

Some level crossings had restricted height bridges going under the railway, the best examples being the bridge strike champions at Ely and Stonea.

That changed with the 1970s/1980s road building mania. The Chettisham and March bypasses got bridges over the Peterborough line, but the Kings Lynn line only had a train every two hours in each direction. The low level of rail traffic was why the Littleport and Downham Market bypasses got level crossings. Another Fenland bypass built with a level crossing was Wisbech, which only had a few freight trains.

An oddity in Fenland bridge history is Histon, built in 1963 to eliminate congestion at the level crossing when the Whitemoor-Temple Mills coal trains went through, rail traffic that had gone less than 5 years later.

Now we have reached the stage where millions will be spent to eliminate the level crossings at Queen Adelaide as part of the Ely North Junction upgrade.

 

[steamybrian]

Mentioning Norfolk reminds me...

The level crossing at Sheringham to connect North Norfolk Railway with National Rail was reinstated only a few years ago.

 

[najaB]

It was completely closed in (apparently in 1994) although some track was left.

Being completely unused (and even having the track lifted) doesn't mean a railway is closed.

 

[TheEdge]

Mentioning Norfolk reminds me...

The level crossing at Sheringham to connect North Norfolk Railway with National Rail was reinstated only a few years ago.

Despite the appearances of a railway crossing a road on the level I have a feeling its not officially a level crossing, possibly being technically a tramway. Its not like its either regularly used or used like a normal level crossing when it is.

 

[Bald Rick]

Mentioning Norfolk reminds me...

The level crossing at Sheringham to connect North Norfolk Railway with National Rail was reinstated only a few years ago.

it has very specific limits on the number of times a year it can be used. IIRC it’s about 12.

 

[Ediswan]

I believe 'Norden Gates' crossing, just north of Norden on the Swanage Railway, is new, opened in 2016.