Closure of the level crossing between Dalwhinnie and Ben Alder estate

[Bikeman78]

This article adds a few points about Network Rail's view on the situation:

CCTV installed at Ben Alder level crossing as row continues

Network Rail working with British Transport Police to 'discourage' people from climbing over locked gates

www.strathspey-herald.co.uk

From which we can draw that Network Rail expect that they will be able to gather evidence from the CCTV, which I doubt they will have installed without consulting the BTP and/or their legal team.

We can also draw that the matter is being dealt with by Scottish Network Rail/Scotland's Railway teams, indicating that any suggestion that this is any kind of attempt to apply English legals to a Scottish situation is almost certainly incorrect.

Finally there are specific statements that the usage of the crossing has been increasing ("increased usage by the public") and that misuse of the crossing has also been increasing ("the [local] level crossing manager became aware of increasing levels of unsafe public use"). These will have had a significant impact on the level crossing risk assessment, which is likely to be what has triggered these actions.

What use will CCTV be unless it also captures vehicle details? I live 100s of miles away so I could go there, climb over the gates and come home. I don't have a criminal record so how would they catch me?

If only road safety were taken this seriously. I've been moaning at the council for years about a blocked drain which causes a local road to be flooded during and long after rainfall. The road surface is breaking apart and the holes are hard to see because they are under water but the council couldn't care less. If I fall off my bike and get crushed to death, will someone from Cardiff council go to prison? Unlikely I think.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

What use will CCTV be unless it also captures vehicle details? I live 100s of miles away so I could go there, climb over the gates and come home. I don't have a criminal record so how would they catch me?

If only road safety were taken this seriously. I've been moaning at the council for years about a blocked drain which causes a local road to be flooded during and long after rainfall. The road surface is breaking apart and the holes are hard to see because they are under water but the council couldn't care less. If I fall off my bike and get crushed to death, will someone from Cardiff council go to prison? Unlikely I think.

I imagine one use of CCTV will be to record incidents of 'misuse' to then present as evidence justifying the current semi-closure or a permanent closure. What it will not record is if the 'misuse' is due to Network Rail's actions in locking the gates, thus preventing proper use. For that you would need full disclosure of any manual surveys undertaken / CCTV footage recorded prior to the gates being locked.

Also, if as is suggested up thread, authorised users are leaving the locks unfastened, it will record which users are doing this.

 

[IanXC]

Show us your workings out. How much has use increased, what and how numerous are the instances of observed unsafe public use (rather than merely public use). Are those instances as a result of the recent actions of Network Rail (locking the gates and attaching mesh fencing) or long-standing (people crossing whilst looking at mobile phone, wearing headphones, not closing gates after use etc). If the locks were removed and the mesh removed, would that result in reduced levels of unsafe use?

I believe Level Crossing Risk Assessments are regularly released under the Environmental Information Regulations should someone care to request it.

Our old friend the Straw Man makes an appearance. Its quite clear that the assessment was made before the recent changes were made, and attempting to suggest otherwise just shows the weakness of your argument.

 

[Taunton]

I don't know if there have been specific changes here, but ...

The safety analysis above states 80mph line limit. What it omits is the crossing is a few hundred yards from Dalwhinnie station, where the majority of services stop. It is actually inside the home signals, but the analysis doesn't state this and lets you believe everything is running at 80.

Whatever the linespeed in the paperwork, it is on the steep upgrade to the highest point on the UK network. The new nonstop Azumas, running just once a day but which apparently require special measures at the crossing, are the same ones that caused initial doubt whether, on diesel power, they could get up the hill at a meaningful speed at all. Apparently if lucky they manage about 60mph through Dalwhinnie. Coming down then? Well Dalwhinnie is where the double track ends, trains need to slow for the crossover from double to single line

The derailment of the HST there a couple of months ago, right next to the crossing, will have brought the RAIB along to this otherwise isolated spot. One wonders if the crossing was commented on, and someone at NR in Glasgow, keen to get Brownie Points with the RAIB, decided that closing the crossing might be in their interests.

The recent thing about having to send someone out to guard for each Azuma passing is apparently due to a defect with their horns, leading to unreliability. Apart from them having been in service for several years now, surely that is an issue for the train owner. If the horns are so unreliable that attendants have to be sent out each day, what about the pw gangs along the line.

The statement from the Health & Safety Director in Glasgow is extremely patronising, and quite frankly not worthy of someone in a senior role. It reinforces all the stereotypes about "Health & Safety" personnel not being connected with the real world. If they are not capable of writing something better than that they should consider their position.

 

[InOban]

Actually most trains don't stop at Dalwhinnie, But I believe that it should be made clear in law that if NR post clear instructions for use, which must be easy to follow by the general public, then they should be absolved of any responsibility for users failure to follow said instructures.

It is clear that there are hundreds of crossings which are much more dangerous as evidenced by multiple incidents or near misses because of wilful disregard of the proper procedures.

 

[Roast Veg]

Actually most trains don't stop at Dalwhinnie, But I believe that it should be made clear in law that if NR post clear instructions for use, which must be easy to follow by the general public, then they should be absolved of any responsibility for users failure to follow said instructures.

That does not protect drivers from the psychological effects of such an incident.

 

[trebor79]

Perhaps the trains could slow just a bit, sacrificing a couple of valuable minutes.

Yeah, and swerve to avoid anyone too.

You can jest, but that's exactly what happens on the Breckland Line at the A1075 crossing near Thetford. There's a "permanent TSR" of 40mph over the AHB crossing.

Not gonna happen. There are paths to keep, particularly southbound. One train being 2/3 minutes later every day may need an entire recast of an area’s timetable.

The performance of the IEP is such that any delay will be incredibly minor or non-existant. On the example I give above, trains still wait for time at Thetford heading south and Attleborough going north. Even more so since the 755's came in.

 

[eastdyke]

Actually most trains don't stop at Dalwhinnie, But I believe that it should be made clear in law that if NR post clear instructions for use, which must be easy to follow by the general public, then they should be absolved of any responsibility for users failure to follow said instructures.

That would require Network Rail to be relieved of a duty under Health & Safety Legislation.
In modern life this is not a route that has generally found favour with either legislators or with the wider public.

You can jest, but that's exactly what happens on the Breckland Line at the A1075 crossing near Thetford. There's a "permanent TSR" of 40mph over the AHB crossing.

To be replaced with MCBOD [Manually Controlled Barriers with Obstacle Detection] I understand from other threads. Requires changes to the signalling system. But yes, it's been a while!

 

[InOban]

That does not protect drivers from the psychological effects of such an incident.

Lots of car and truck drivers have to recover from the same, and do.

That would require Network Rail to be relieved of a duty under Health & Safety Legislation.
In modern life this is not a route that has generally found favour with either legislators or with the wider public.

And why not? I'm only asking that the same rules apply to the railway as apply everywhere else.

 

[Bald Rick]

You can jest, but that's exactly what happens on the Breckland Line at the A1075 crossing near Thetford. There's a "permanent TSR" of 40mph over the AHB crossing.

There’s hundreds of speed restrictions on for level crossings all over the network. Possibly as many as a thousand.

The performance of the IEP is such that any delay will be incredibly minor or non-existant. On the example I give above, trains still wait for time at Thetford heading south and Attleborough going north. Even more so since the 755's came in.

That’s because, for Croxton, it is built into the timetable. This is not the case for Dalwhinnie. It could easily cost a minute or two there, which could cause issues for the single line sections. It would also cause some furrowed brows at Transport Scotland who recently spent the best part of £60m to save a few minutes on the route.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Lots of car and truck drivers have to recover from the same, and do.


And why not? I'm only asking that the same rules apply to the railway as apply everywhere else.

I think many road vehicle drivers suffer a lot after being involved in/causing 'accidents'. Do many get over it altogether?

One difference of course is that train drivers are usually not guilty when their train strikes a person. Road vehicle drivers are often guilty of causing wrecks.

 

[option]

It seems the walkers have no interest in using the alternative safer crossing point. Pig-headedness will not help matters here and the combination padlock is being left open by people who should know better

There is a perfectly viable alternative down the line which does not even cross the railway, it goes under!

A quick look on the google overheads shows that once your under, the track north back to Ben Alder Rd goes through what looks like a works site with fencing.

Considering that end of the loch is a dam & weir, & there's a ScottishHydro compound just east of the bridge, then I suspect it's a works site associated with that.
Are you free to roam through there?



eta;
The mapping here is interesting (you'll have to zoom out a bit)

Map | Canmore

canmore.org.uk

It shows that any route under the railway further south might not be very suitable. Certainly the ground type looks like it could get very wet.
A route south from the car park would be worse, multiple drains & an area of marsh.

 

[Greybeard33]

For an occupation crossing such as this, is it not the owner of the private road, not Network Rail, that determines who is or is not an authorised user of the crossing? And can such authorisation not be extended to visitors, as well as residents and the owner's employees?

By permitting walkers to use the road, and indeed building a car park for their use, it would seem that the Ben Alder Estate has implicitly authorised them to use the crossing too.

 

[Justin Smith]

You say you have long experience of level crossing matters, what is the chances someone would get killed on that crossing, not exactly, just roughly, in any one year ?
If they, or you, do not know the answer to that it [the quoted risk assessment] is a meaningless risk assessment, and they certainly are not following the self evident truth in my signature below..

Did anyone actually answer this, or was it parked in the "too difficult" bin ?
BTW, what exactly does "risk assessment" mean ?
In my rational ignorance I'd have thought it meant the chances of something happening.....
It seems to me that these days a "risk assessment" means 'is there any chance something might happen (irrespective of how likely it actually is, or of the inconvenience and/or cost its banning might entail) ?'

 

[Bald Rick]

And can such authorisation not be extended to visitors, as well as residents and the owner's employees?

The Authorised user(s) is/are laid out in agreement with NR. Of course the authorise duser(s) can permit other people to use the crossing, but it the authorised users’ responsibility to ensure they know the correct procedures for using it.

 

[The exile]

BTW, what exactly does "risk assessment" mean ?

Put simply, it's a balancing up of two elements:

How severe the consequences of a particular incident / event might be
How likely it is to happen

So, for example, the consequences of an airliner crashing onto the ECML in front of the Flying Scotsman would be catastrophic, but the chances of it actually happening are so remote that no mitigation is necessary. (Although I believe that there were [maybe still are] precautions to be taken on the section of line going past the end of the runway at Edinburgh Airport when planes were taking off / landing over it)
The consequences of someone walking into a round pipe going across a badly lit corridor at a height of 5'10" are likely to be minor, but if it's a well-used corridor it's likely to happen frequently - so signs, padding, better lighting and black and yellow striped tape are likely to appear (all of which also have the advantage of being cheap)

I suspect that what often isn't done is the "second degree" risk assessment - "If making this activity / route safe forces / encourages people to choose an alternative route / activity, how risky is that?" - especially if the "alternative route / activity" is not "our" responsibility.

 

[Justin Smith]

Put simply, it's a balancing up of two elements:

How severe the consequences of a particular incident / event might be
How likely it is to happen

So, for example, the consequences of an airliner crashing onto the ECML in front of the Flying Scotsman would be catastrophic, but the chances of it actually happening are so remote that no mitigation is necessary. (Although I believe that there were [maybe still are] precautions to be taken on the section of line going past the end of the runway at Edinburgh Airport when planes were taking off / landing over it)
The consequences of someone walking into a round pipe going across a badly lit corridor at a height of 5'10" are likely to be minor, but if it's a well-used corridor it's likely to happen frequently - so signs, padding, better lighting and black and yellow striped tape are likely to appear (all of which also have the advantage of being cheap)

I suspect that what often isn't done is the "second degree" risk assessment - "If making this activity / route safe forces / encourages people to choose an alternative route / activity, how risky is that?" - especially if the "alternative route / activity" is not "our" responsibility.

So, bearing in mind that trains have to travel in an exactly predetermined direction (one literally only has to move a maximum of about 6ft and the train will definitely miss you), and they are very noisy, how likely is it someone will be knocked down on a railway line ?
Just out of interest, is the crossing being discussed here on a single or double track line (I do not have my rail atlases with me on holiday ! ) ?
If it is a single track I am even more at a loss, one really would have to be even more clumsy and/or stupid to get hit by a train on a single track railway.
Where is the concept of personal responsibility in all this ?
Lastly, particularly if warning signs are put up, why would NR be found liable for someone being hit by a train at a crossing ? Highways England would not be found liable if someone got killed by a car whilst crossing the road. I do not understand it, it is irrational.

I have made this point before, that closing any type of crossing is not a positive thing, certainly not for everyone.
It annoys me intensely that different safety standards are held for railways as opposed to roads. They are thinking of opening a station at Magna (Rotherham) for the Tram Train. I saw an artist's impression of it with a massive, and very expensive, bridge over the line from one platform to the other. That will then (apart from Rotherham mainline station) be the only stop on system with such a bridge. At all other stops where people "only" have to cross busy roads you are expected to walk across the road.....

Actually, whilst on a subject, the two most dangerous pedestrian crossings in Sheffield are tram linked (Fitzalan Sq and Hillsborough). At both the double track tram line takes up a one side of what looks like a dual carriageway, and a two way road the other. What happens is people who are not thinking that clearly, possibly rushing for a tram, sub consciously think they are crossing a dual carriageway and get hit by a car coming the other way.
Other than these odd examples, it is not considered dangerous to cross a road to catch a tram in Sheffield. And, in fact, even the two aforementioned danger spots have not had pedestrian bridges built....

 

[Falcon1200]

(Although I believe that there were [maybe still are] precautions to be taken on the section of line going past the end of the runway at Edinburgh Airport when planes were taking off / landing over it)

There are trip wires on the railway at Edinburgh Airport, and also at Glasgow and Prestwick Airports.

 

[Bald Rick]

Lastly, particularly if warning signs are put up, why would NR be found liable for someone being hit by a train at a crossing ?

In very simple terms, because a road is a public highway that anyone can cross at any point (motorways excepted).

A railway is not, and crossing is only permitted at specified locations. In law, it is the railway’s responsibility to take the necessary precautions, as far as is reasonably practical, to prevent incidents at level crossings.

 

[Bill57p9]

Just out of interest, is the crossing being discussed here on a single or double track line (I do not have my rail atlases with me on holiday ! ) ?

It is double track at the crossing itself, which is just beyond the south end of the station.

 

[snowball]

There are trip wires on the railway at Edinburgh Airport, and also at Glasgow and Prestwick Airports.

And Manchester.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

There are trip wires on the railway at Edinburgh Airport, and also at Glasgow and Prestwick Airports.

And Manchester.

And at Gatwick Airport, if I rightly recall.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Possibly worth mentioning the fairly recent (late 2020) £135,000 fine imposed on Network Rail by a Scottish court in relation to a trespass incident near Musselburgh in August 2016. This followed an ORR investigation that established that although there was clear evidence of trespass and graffiti in the area, the fence provided by Network Rail was substandard and poorly maintained, such that unauthorised access to the railway was straightforward.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/...ollowing-orr-investigation-into-electrocution

Very simply, having done a risk assessment and/or being aware of a problem and then doing nothing is no longer an option. (Yes, I am obviously aware that this case involved electric shock rather than being hit by a moving train but the principle is still the same.)

 

[Bald Rick]

Very simply, having done a risk assessment and/or being aware of a problem and then doing nothing is no longer an option.

And hasn’t been for many years.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Possibly worth mentioning the fairly recent (late 2020) £135,000 fine imposed on Network Rail by a Scottish court in relation to a trespass incident near Musselburgh in August 2016. This followed an ORR investigation that established that although there was clear evidence of trespass and graffiti in the area, the fence provided by Network Rail was substandard and poorly maintained, such that unauthorised access to the railway was straightforward.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/...ollowing-orr-investigation-into-electrocution

Very simply, having done a risk assessment and/or being aware of a problem and then doing nothing is no longer an option. (Yes, I am obviously aware that this case involved electric shock rather than being hit by a moving train but the principle is still the same.)

£135k fine for doing nothing? Upthread we're being told someone would be jailed for that.
And given the price of work on the railway £135k wouldn''t go very far, I wouldn't be surprised if they've spent more than that on the CCTV etc.

 

[Dr Hoo]

And hasn’t been for many years.

Of course.

(I could have mentioned the even more recent £6,500,000 fine on a freight terminal operator (in England) for failing to mitigate a known trespass risk from an adjacent public bridleway but wanted to use a Scottish example.)

 

[Bald Rick]

Of course.

(I could have mentioned the even more recent £6,500,000 fine on a freight terminal operator (in England) for failing to mitigate a known trespass risk from an adjacent public bridleway but wanted to use a Scottish example.)

Indeed. There a several examples of multi million pound fines. These are as a result of the company concerned being found guilty, typically through having process that was not as strong as it could have been.

Convictions of individuals are much rarer, but do happen elsewhere in industry. Such a conviction usually requires proof that the individual concerned was negligent in their responsibilities - for example wilfully ignoring a known risk, doing nothing about it, and an incident resulting. Fortunately on the railway those responsible don’t allow this to happen.

 

[Bikeman78]

Possibly worth mentioning the fairly recent (late 2020) £135,000 fine imposed on Network Rail by a Scottish court in relation to a trespass incident near Musselburgh in August 2016. This followed an ORR investigation that established that although there was clear evidence of trespass and graffiti in the area, the fence provided by Network Rail was substandard and poorly maintained, such that unauthorised access to the railway was straightforward.

There is graffiti all over lineside structures around London which suggests that tresspass is common.

Do the TOCs/Network Rail still send people to schools? Back in the 1980s someone from British Rail came to my school and showed us the third rail version of the infamous Robbie video.

 

[Bald Rick]

Do the TOCs/Network Rail still send people to schools?

Yes, regularly.

 

[D6130]

And Manchester.

.....and Gatwick, Teesside and RAF Valley.