Ban on building level crossings

[najaB]

Anyone know?

ALARP.

The "R" is what you are referring to.

 

[Titfield]

It looks like the crossing (track itself) was in existence as far back as 2011.

EDIT: Didn't realise there was a page 2!

When the A351 Road between Wareham and Corfe Castle was realigned (not sure exactly when 1980s?) and road access was created to the Wytch Farm Oilfield by BP, Dorset Council as part of the planning consent (for the oilfield) mandated that the Swanage Railway could not be cut off and that provision for a level crossing would be made. Eventually when the time came Perenco as successors to BP at Wytch Farm made a large financial contribution to the cost of the level crossing.

 

[tspaul26]

I'm curious whether the safety assessments for new level crossings consider just the crossing in isolation, or the wider situation where the need for a bridge or multiple bridges may make a rail scheme financially unviable such that it doesn't get built at all and as a result all of those journeys which would have been by rail now take place by using the roads.

Creating a new level crossing creates a safety risk, but if it means it is then viable to reopen a rail route then there's a safety benefit from reduced road journeys, which may offset or exceed the risk from a new level crossing.

Anyone know?

The short answer is, yes, wider viability is taken into account.

The long answer is, shall we say, more complicated and would fill several hundred pages.

My colleagues and I have spent much of the past year dealing with just this issue for one of our clients!

ALARP.

The "R" is what you are referring to.

Indeed. There is a separate consideration of proportionality as well where ‘the bigger picture’ comes in too.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm curious whether the safety assessments for new level crossings consider just the crossing in isolation, or the wider situation where the need for a bridge or multiple bridges may make a rail scheme financially unviable such that it doesn't get built at all and as a result all of those journeys which would have been by rail now take place by using the roads.

Creating a new level crossing creates a safety risk, but if it means it is then viable to reopen a rail route then there's a safety benefit from reduced road journeys, which may offset or exceed the risk from a new level crossing.

Anyone know?

To add to previous answers, you need a serious amount of modal shift to make a meaningful contribution to road safety values in business cases.

 

[Dr Hoo]

To add to previous answers, you need a serious amount of modal shift to make a meaningful contribution to road safety values in business cases.

Quite; and as various re-openings elsewhere have demonstrated, the proportion of journeys from people 'leaving their car at home' is often quite small and the proportion on a particular road is even smaller. Many users of a new service may transfer from bus (probably no material reduction in road traffic) or be making totally new journeys (as in "I'll look for a job in Bristol now rather than just locally") or are new residents in newly-built housing and so forth.

 

[Annetts key]

When was the last train over the section that quays avenue crosses? When I walked along the section of the same line near the M5 a mile or so closer to Bristol 2 years ago a lot of the rails were missing and much of what did remain was flooded to rail height.
I'd suggest that the TWA order now normal practise would have ruled out a level crossing adjacent to a roundabout on a new passenger line even if a disused freight crossing had existed.

I don’t know, but it’s likely to be around 28 years ago at least. Certainly, it was more difficult after 1994, not just because of the political changes to the railways, but also because around this time the electrical signalling controlled by Ashton Junction signal box was condemned.

Before the line had a lot work done to enable freight trains to run to and from Portbury Docks, numerous lengths of rail, clips and chairs were stolen from various areas nearer to Bristol. It’s also possible that at some stage earlier on, the railway recovered some rail itself.

Regarding the possible level crossing, I did use the word ‘possible’ in my earlier post. It would definitely not have been a certainty. It may not have changed the outcome. We will never know.

 

[philthetube]

On a tramway, vehicles are driven on line of sight, so as to be able to stop short of any obstruction that becomes visible, just as road vehicles are (or should be). This should be possible using the normal brakes, not the magnetic track brakes. A collision is still possible if something gets onto the track close in front of a moving tram, but tram drivers are trained to anticipate such situations and they have the track brake as a backup should one arise.

Therefore, other things being equal, the likelihood of a collision is much less on a tramway crossing than on a railway level crossing. The solution to this is to manage the risk so other things aren't equal, such as by providing flashing lights and barriers at a railway level crossing, connected to high-integrity detection and control logic. Although they look different, tram signals are very similar in function and integrity to traffic lights.

I think that mile for mile trams have many more collisions on junctions that trains, however the consequences are generally much less severe and so don't get the publicity.

 

[edwin_m]

I think that mile for mile trams have many more collisions on junctions that trains, however the consequences are generally much less severe and so don't get the publicity.

Indeed. Trams are much more like road vehicles in that respect. Also they are designed to make collision less hazardous, by including fairings round the running gear and avoiding protruding items that might damage people and vehicles.

 

[Pigeon]

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

None of that lot will make a jot of difference.

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.

I'd put it more strongly and say that any level crossing which is jumpable at all (including charging underneath full barriers while they are coming down) positively encourages people to jump it.

When a traffic light goes red on you then you know you still have a few seconds where you can get across the junction before the conflicting traffic starts up; then it does start up, and gives you an obviously visible reason to wait until the lights change again.

At a level crossing you don't even get a proper traffic light; you just get this ghastly wailing flashing disco effect, which is obviously because of the railway not being allowed to use real traffic lights that you actually by law have to stop at, so they put up this horrible thing in an attempt to make up for the lack of legal compulsion by making a huge fuss to try and put you off. Must be something like that or they'd just do it normally same as at a real road junction. Anyway, it's not a proper red-yellow-green on a stick so it can't be properly serious.

(Before anyone starts, yes I know what it means, but I'm a nerd same as you. I'm describing what it looks like if you're not one.)

(Also, bollocks to "amber". Nobody who's never seen one before is going to look at a yellow traffic light and go "ooh, look, it's amber". It's yellow, just like other yellow things are yellow. Where did this silly word come from anyway?)

Then you know you have not just a few seconds, but a few minutes, before a train turns up, so there's buckets of time to get across before it arrives vs. an outrageously long wait if you do wait for it.

Then after the train has gone past you are still supposed to wait around for another few minutes for no reason at all before the crossing reverts to "road" mode.

Then there are crossings where you positively know where the train is because you can see it. It's stopped in the station just before the crossing and there are people getting on and off it. You know fine it's not going to move forward and hit you, so why not go. Or even worse it's stopped in the station just after the crossing and when it does move it's going to move away, but the crossing still won't re-open until it has done, which is just silly and obviously they only do it so the railway can gratuitously piss the road users off.

Even if you do know all the fiddly details of the reasons why level crossings behave in such an infuriating manner, it doesn't necessarily act as a discouragment - quite possibly actually the reverse, as you then know what kind of margins you've got to play with for this particular kind of crossing, instead of just guessing from generalisations. And in road terms those margins are laughably long and loose. When you're driving a car, nipping out of junctions when you get no more than a few seconds of opportunity to do it is the sort of thing you do all the time, multiple times in every journey, without thinking about it, because it's just normal and if you don't do it you can never drive further than up and down your own driveway. You simply will not persuade people to not consider level crossings in the same everyday fashion.

The other is in the centre of Porthmadog, and was installed when the Welsh Highland railway was connected to the Ffestiniog about 10 years ago.

I am still staggered that they managed to do that every time I think of it. It's as if the Great Little Trains of Wales are of such immense touristic importance that you can just chuck all the normal rules out the window...

Great Heck,?

A dreadful accident indeed, but the vehicle did not actually come off the road at the overbridge, or knock any part of it onto the track.

Aye, but there was that other one not long afterwards... can't remember the name of the place. An overbridge-related incident of sorts except that the bridge wasn't there any more. So someone comes flying down the road in a Transit, drives straight through the wall built across the road where the bridge used to be, and goes flop down onto the track in a shower of bricks.

I suppose you could argue that if people are going to drive through brick walls and out into space like Wile E. Coyote running off the cliff, you might just as well give up on any idea of barriers to prevent them getting onto level crossings at the wrong moment before you even start...

 

[najaB]

At a level crossing you don't even get a proper traffic light; you just get this ghastly wailing flashing disco effect, which is obviously because of the railway not being allowed to use real traffic lights that you actually by law have to stop at...

Oh dear, I do hope you brush up on your highway code. To whit:

293
Controlled Crossings. Most crossings have traffic light signals with a steady amber light, twin flashing red stop lights (download ‘Light signals controlling traffic’ and ‘Traffic signs’) and an audible alarm for pedestrians. They may have full, half or no barriers.

You MUST always obey the flashing red stop lights.
You MUST stop behind the white line across the road.
Keep going if you have already crossed the white line when the amber light comes on.
Do not reverse onto or over a controlled crossing.
You MUST wait if a train goes by and the red lights continue to flash. This means another train will be passing soon.
Only cross when the lights go off and barriers open.
Never zig-zag around half-barriers, they lower automatically because a train is approaching.
At crossings where there are no barriers, a train is approaching when the lights show.

Even emergency vehicles are compelled to stop, unlike traffic lights.

Edit: And in the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

Significance of light signals prescribed by regulation 39
40. The significance of the light signals prescribed by regulation 39 shall be as follows—

(a)the amber signal shall convey the prohibition that traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line or the road marking shown in diagram 1003.2, except that a vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line may proceed across the level crossing; and
(b)the intermittent red signals shall convey the prohibition that traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line or the road marking shown in diagram 1003.2.

 

[Pigeon]

Er, did you read the two-sentence paragraph following the one you quoted...?

 

[najaB]

Er, did you read the two-sentence paragraph following the one you quoted...?

The highway code is the highway code, if someone is on the road without knowing what it says then that's their fault. Knowing the code isn't a 'nerd' thing, it's the law.

 

[Meerkat]

The highway code is the highway code, if someone is on the road without knowing what it says then that's their fault. Knowing the code isn't a 'nerd' thing, it's the law.

It maybe their fault, but its also the railway's problem.

 

[najaB]

It maybe their fault, but its also the railway's problem.

Which is why they're closing level crossings where they can, and avoiding adding new ones.

 

[the sniper]

At a level crossing you don't even get a proper traffic light; you just get this ghastly wailing flashing disco effect, which is obviously because of the railway not being allowed to use real traffic lights that you actually by law have to stop at, so they put up this horrible thing in an attempt to make up for the lack of legal compulsion by making a huge fuss to try and put you off. Must be something like that or they'd just do it normally same as at a real road junction. Anyway, it's not a proper red-yellow-green on a stick so it can't be properly serious.

(Before anyone starts, yes I know what it means, but I'm a nerd same as you. I'm describing what it looks like if you're not one.)

I don't think even the stupidest Driver would think the 'ghastly wailing flashing disco' at a railway crossing is legally ignorable.

 

[Pigeon]

The highway code is the highway code, if someone is on the road without knowing what it says then that's their fault. Knowing the code isn't a 'nerd' thing, it's the law.

How many people even look at it once they've passed their driving test? Most people don't care about anything to do with driving once they've been allowed to start doing it on their own, and are just as clueless about it as normals are about the trains they use every day. Of course they're being lawful, they've got a licence haven't they? "Refresher course"? What's that? (apart from political suicide for anyone trying to bring it in...)

 

[najaB]

How many people even look at it once they've passed their driving test?

That's a whole different topic that we could spend ages on. However, ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.

 

[Falcon1200]

When a traffic light goes red on you then you know you still have a few seconds where you can get across the junction before the conflicting traffic starts up;

So it's perfectly acceptable to ignore red traffic lights, therefore it should be OK to ignore LC road lights too ?

At a level crossing you don't even get a proper traffic light; you just get this ghastly wailing flashing disco effect, which is obviously because of the railway not being allowed to use real traffic lights that you actually by law have to stop at,

The only problem being, as above, is that people ignore red traffic lights, and, as najaB has explained, Emergency Services vehicles are allowed to pass red traffic lights, but not LC road lights, therefore there has to be distinctly different equipment at LCs.

Anyway, it's not a proper red-yellow-green on a stick so it can't be properly serious.

Any road user stupid or careless enough to ignore red flashing lights is an idiot. BTW are similar lights not used in other situations, eg Fire Station exits and lifting bridges ?

Then after the train has gone past you are still supposed to wait around for another few minutes for no reason at all before the crossing reverts to "road" mode.

Nonsense, LC barriers normally raise as soon as the train has passed, unless of course another train is coming, in which case it is not a good idea to attempt to cross.

When you're driving a car, nipping out of junctions when you get no more than a few seconds of opportunity to do it is the sort of thing you do all the time, multiple times in every journey, without thinking about it, because it's just normal and if you don't do it you can never drive further than up and down your own driveway. You simply will not persuade people to not consider level crossings in the same everyday fashion.

Nipping out of a driveway in front a road vehicle is completely different from attempting to beat a train which cannot stop quickly, cannot swerve, and weighs up to 2000 tons.

I agree that LCs are a source of delay and frustration to road users, but equally to the railway as well, and the ideal solution is to replace or close as many as possible.

 

[NoRoute]

The only problem being, as above, is that people ignore red traffic lights, and, as najaB has explained, Emergency Services vehicles are allowed to pass red traffic lights, but not LC road lights, therefore there has to be distinctly different equipment at LCs.

There's a trade-off between the benefit of having a unique traffic light used only on level crossing which conveys some additional information to a small group of road users, against the disadvantage of it being a unique traffic light which a significant number of road users rarely encounter and don't always fully understand how to respond.

Personally I think it would be much better if level crossings used normal 3 colour traffic lights accompanied by a number of level crossing signs, the signs and in most cases the barriers making it clear it should not be crossed.

From the perspective of a road user, the wig-wags are horribly designed and unusual. No green light. Flashing lights used as a stop command rather than a caution. Unusual light arrangement. The design is a recipe for confusion, it survives because of inertia of the railways and DfT.

 

[Falcon1200]

There's a trade-off between the benefit of having a unique traffic light used only on level crossing which conveys some additional information to a small group of road users, against the disadvantage of it being a unique traffic light which a significant number of road users rarely encounter and don't always fully understand how to respond.

Personally I think it would be much better if level crossings used normal 3 colour traffic lights accompanied by a number of level crossing signs, the signs and in most cases the barriers making it clear it should not be crossed.

From the perspective of a road user, the wig-wags are horribly designed and unusual. No green light. Flashing lights used as a stop command rather than a caution. Unusual light arrangement. The design is a recipe for confusion, it survives because of inertia of the railways and DfT.

We will have to agree to disagree, IMHO the very different conditions, and results of a collision, at road junctions and railway LCs require different levels of warning and protection. It has been discussed and promulgated before, but the worrying degree to which road users feel they can ignore red traffic lights necessitates this.

 

[najaB]

From the perspective of a road user, the wig-wags are horribly designed and unusual.

The mere fact that they are "unusual" should give pause to any road user with even a modicum of sense.

Any driver whose reaction to seeing something different is "I guess I can ignore it", rather than "I better take care" shouldn't be on the road as they are a danger to themselves and everyone around then.

 

[NoRoute]

We will have to agree to disagree, IMHO the very different conditions, and results of a collision, at road junctions and railway LCs require different levels of warning and protection. It has been discussed and promulgated before, but the worrying degree to which road users feel they can ignore red traffic lights necessitates this.

The key issue is the effectiveness of that warning being understood and acted upon, that it is a different warning to a regular traffic light does not mean it is better or a warning of a greater significance as that depends on the interpretation of the driver and as we know, many either do not understand wig-wags or do understand but still ignore them,

I agree to disagree!

The mere fact that they are "unusual" should give pause to any road user with even a modicum of sense.

No, that's illogical, the road user isn't stationary, they are driving toward this traffic light at speed. If you want to convey important safety information in a very short period of time as someone approaches the signal then you need to use something which is familiar and where the understanding is automatic. The pause you refer to, means the driver is continuing to drive along thinking what should they do, you don't want them to be pausing and wondering what they should do, you want them to be stopping,

 

[najaB]

The pause you refer to, means the driver is continuing to drive along thinking what should they do, you don't want them to be pausing and wondering what they should do, you want them to be stopping

Definition of GIVE (SOMEONE) PAUSE

to cause (someone) to stop and think about something carefully or to have doubts about something… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

If in doubt, stop.

 

[tspaul26]

Personally I think it would be much better if level crossings used normal 3 colour traffic lights accompanied by a number of level crossing signs, the signs and in most cases the barriers making it clear it should not be crossed.

As has been stated above, the legal restrictions are different so this is not possible. The illuminated sign for a controlled crossing must be different in order to communicate that underlying reality.

 

[NoRoute]

If in doubt, stop.

I don't think you have understood how people actually behave in real life, if a driver is progressing along a road at speed and sees something they do not understand how to react to, many won't simply stop, they continue while thinking about what it means and how to respond,

If you are trying to convey something important requiring immediate action then there must be no uncertainty or ambiguity about what the signal means.

 

[najaB]

I don't think you have understood how people actually behave in real life, if a driver is progressing along a road at speed and sees something they do not understand how to react to, many won't simply stop, they continue while thinking about what it means and how to respond,

Which is how people die.

 

[jopsuk]

The big issue with level crossings is that it's not a simple case of personal responsibility. Misuse has consequences for other people, and we know all too well that people are irrational and selfish. The argument that crossings are safe as long as people use them correctly will forever run up against people not using them correctly.

 

[Annetts key]

While you all debate a normal road traffic light against a wig-wag type, maybe you should have a look at Ashton crossing in Bristol.
Because the council decided that the adjacent road junction should be traffic signal controlled, this crossing has BOTH a normal traffic light AND wig-wags (the two systems are linked).

That does not stop idiots from jumping the traffic signals when the crossing is open, or both when the red traffic signal is showing AND the red wig-wag lights are flashing when the signaller has started the crossing closing sequence.

Here are some Google street view images:



This last one was taken by Google during the time the council were working on the junction hence there were temporary traffic light signals in operation. But you can see the fixed permanent traffic signals.



I also think that the vast majority of drivers that use the road(s) with level crossings regularly, do know exactly that they should stop at the flashing red lights.

In fact, IMHO, the vast majority of road vehicle drivers are more likely to stop at a level crossing that is infrequently used (by trains) compared to a local at a level crossing that has a frequent train service.

The big issue with level crossings is that it's not a simple case of personal responsibility. Misuse has consequences for other people, and we know all too well that people are irrational and selfish. The argument that crossings are safe as long as people use them correctly will forever run up against people not using them correctly.

That applies to any safety system and also to various laws.

 

[edwin_m]

The key issue is the effectiveness of that warning being understood and acted upon, that it is a different warning to a regular traffic light does not mean it is better or a warning of a greater significance as that depends on the interpretation of the driver and as we know, many either do not understand wig-wags or do understand but still ignore them,

I don't think we "know" any such thing. Please provide some evidence to support your opinion.

The key issue is the effectiveness of that warning being understood and acted upon, that it is a different warning to a regular traffic light does not mean it is better or a warning of a greater significance as that depends on the interpretation of the driver and as we know, many either do not understand wig-wags or do understand but still ignore them,

No, that's illogical, the road user isn't stationary, they are driving toward this traffic light at speed. If you want to convey important safety information in a very short period of time as someone approaches the signal then you need to use something which is familiar and where the understanding is automatic. The pause you refer to, means the driver is continuing to drive along thinking what should they do, you don't want them to be pausing and wondering what they should do, you want them to be stopping,

Again, it would be interesting to see any confirmatory evidence, such as research by human factors experts. In the absence of this I incline towards what seems the more logical interpretation, that an unusual indication would be more likely to attract specific attention than a more common one. There is some risk of a startle effect if something highly unusual happens unexpectedly, but either a traffic light or a wig-wag should have sufficient sighting distance for an approaching driver to identify, react and stop safely.

 

[Starmill]

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.

I'm aware of one incident at a level crossing where broken glass found its way onto the ground, although it wasn't known how. A particularly unfortunate lorry driver struck the broken glass while correctly using the crossing and blew a front tyre. This caused the lorry unit to come within the safe distance of the overhead wires, the resulting arcing leading to the lorry being immobilised on the crossing and the overhead wire equipment becoming damaged. Not a possibility that would have occurred to me had I not heard about it!