Closure of the level crossing between Dalwhinnie and Ben Alder estate

[Maxfly]

It‘s understandable that a mixture of stoppers and non-stoppers would complicate things, but it’s hard to believe that it would not be possible to adapt such a system.

The wait for drivers at level crossings often varies a lot depending on whether trains are stoppers or not, or indeed on whether a second train is coming. As the lady from Dalwhinnie pointed out on the BBC piece, drivers are perfectly capable of understanding this, and hill walkers would be no different.

Yes but that system was designed as a budget installation and would need a fair amount of redesign work as well as extra detection and ‘intelligence’ so it knows what’s trains stop and which don’t. The other systems which know whether trains stopped is dictated by signallers selecting such or drivers pressing plungers whereas the pogo has no controls for that sort of selection.
NWR have in the past been fined when a couple of young girls were tragically killed when they didn’t realise a second train was coming and NWR were deemed cuplable, it may have been inadequate signage so users knew when a second train was due but I don’t fully remember

 

[Bald Rick]

It is the only practical way in to one a huge area of some of the most remote and attractive landscape in the Highlands.

It isn’t the ‘only practical way’ - as there is an underbridge a few hundred meters to the south that provides access to the same area. I’ve walked it!

With respect this is ridiculous.

When did a British Rail or Network Rail manager ever go to prison, or be fined, or lose their job, when somebody died at a crossing?

“with respect” - the reason they haven’t is because since such things became more ‘persoanlised’, those involved have not signed risk assessments to allow a crossing with known issues to stay open without appropriate mitigation.

However I can assure you that before then, several people have lost their jobs specifically because of not doing the right things on level crossing risk. And others have been interviewed under caution for manslaughter by the BTP, but were fortunately able to provide the evidence such that they didn’t end up in the dock. A rather uncomfortable few months for them, I should imagine.

So, “with respect”, it is not ridiculous. Not at all.

 

[Starmill]

Network Rail were convicted over the deaths of two teenagers at Elsenham level crossing in December 2005. The risk assessments from the years leading up to the accident had implied that the crossing was unacceptably risky, but changes weren't made.

I'm not suggesting that the facts at Elsenham were similar to today at Ben Alder, but the principle is there.

 

[eastdyke]

Network Rail were convicted over the deaths of two teenagers at Elsenham level crossing in December 2005. The risk assessments from the years leading up to the accident had implied that the crossing was unacceptably risky, but changes weren't made.

I'm not suggesting that the facts at Elsenham were similar to today at Ben Alder, but the principle is there.

And on conviction re Elsenham the fine was, I believe £1m.
That was overshadowed following the Gipsy Lane, Needham Market, footpath crossing death in 2011 on conviction by a fine of £4m.
Of course fines pale to insignificance for the families and friends of those concerned.

There is a current thread on here about 'How far away can you hear a train in good conditions?'
Turning that on its head, how far away can you hear a train in unfavourable conditions?
Answer - just before it hits you.

 

[camerar1]

There has been a crossing at this location recorded on maps as far back as 1870.

An 1899 survey shows that the South signalbox was at this location.

The current single box replaced the earlier arrangement in 1909.

The next bridge south was not historically connected to the Ben Alder access. The connection likely coincides with the Loch Ericht Dalwhinnie dam of 1937.

 

[Falcon1200]

There’s nowhere between Perth and Inverness that can “switch out” now: it’s quite possible that some boxes close overnight due to there being no traffic. Would there be signage along the lines of “If no answer call NR at…..”?

OK, the boxes close rather than switch out, and yes, there are signs giving the NR Control number to phone if the Signaller cannot be contacted.

 

[alf]

“Would you be willing to sign the paperwork that says a crossing known to have safety issues should stay open, certain in the knowledge that if somebody dies on the crossing you’ll be spending some time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure?”

On Thursday a poster wrote the above & his reply today failed to provide any example of a manager who had gone to prison or got a personal fine or even any criminal conviction for a crossing death. I challenged the poster to do so. He couldn’t.

NR is apparently shaping redundancy payments to encourage older managers to leave.
The rumoured reason is to rid the industry of the
“It can’t be done” attitude as reflected by the “Her Majesty’s Pleasure” poster.

The “can’t be done/isn’t done that way” types can then be replaced by open minded younger managers who want to solve problems rather than say no to every challenge.

People on this topic have come up with “Can Do” suggestions that would satisfy both NR & the Munro baggers & the many others who want to get from one side of the railway to the other at this 130 year old crossing.

Lets hope the best of NR are reading this thread.

 

[Southsider]

“Would you be willing to sign the paperwork that says a crossing known to have safety issues should stay open, certain in the knowledge that if somebody dies on the crossing you’ll be spending some time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure?”

On Thursday a poster wrote the above & his reply today failed to provide any example of a manager who had gone to prison or got a personal fine or even any criminal conviction for a crossing death. I challenged the poster to do so. He couldn’t.

NR is apparently shaping redundancy payments to encourage older managers to leave.
The rumoured reason is to rid the industry of the
“It can’t be done” attitude as reflected by the “Her Majesty’s Pleasure” poster.

The “can’t be done/isn’t done that way” types can then be replaced by open minded younger managers who want to solve problems rather than say no to every challenge.

People on this topic have come up with “Can Do” suggestions that would satisfy both NR & the Munro baggers & the many others who want to get from one side of the railway to the other at this 130 year old crossing.

Lets hope the best of NR are reading this thread.

Health and Safety laws have changed over the years and are now targeted to hold individuals to account for their actions / inactions. In other sectors people have been imprisoned for such breaches, perhaps railway staff are more aware of their obligations hence such measures have not been required?

 

[eastdyke]

....
Lets hope the best of NR are reading this thread.

I am afraid you are making me just a little angry. I can assure you that some of the very best are (reading this thread).
[Discalimer - I am not, and never have been, employed by NR or even in the industry]

What I do know has been garnered from people who do, from asking questions and from reading quite a lot.

I commend to you reading about Level Crossings, a lot about Level Crossings.

You could start with The Office of Road and Rail (ORR) publication 'Principles for managing level crossing safety - 15 June 2021'

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/principles-for-managing-level-crossing-safety-june-2021_0.pdf

To comply with forum rules I quote just a small part of, para 3:
ORR’s role

3. ORR is the independent safety and economic regulator for Britain’s railways. We
strive for a railway that operates safely, reliably and provides value for taxpayers and
customers. We protect the health and safety of people who work in the rail industry or
those affected by its activities, by ensuring railway businesses have effective health
and safety management systems in place. This includes identifying, assessing and
controlling risks properly.

And when it comes to any failure, it is The ORR who will bring forward prosecutions of Companies and Individuals under Health and Safety Legislation.

I hope that you are able to enjoy doing some research, I always do! Please do not hestiate to come back with questions that may arise, there are plenty on here who may be able to help.

 

[Bill57p9]

At a higher level what I fail to understand is the complete disconnect between acceptable risk crossing a road versus a railway. Today I observed a pelican crossing with the button inoperative on my side of the road. Did anyone think "I had better use the 3 adjacent working road crossings to box the square around this risk"? Not that I observed: at best they stopped, looked, listened and took some responsibility for their risk taking action.
If a car hit someone doing this, would the local council be scared of being sued out of existence, or the roads manager be sleepless for fear of going to prison for providing faulty equipment and failing to close off the crossing? I doubt it.

To be clear: I do believe the problem is the view of society in this disconnect and not NR. I agree, each preventable death is one too many but for some reason as a society we accept it on the road but have zero tolerance on other forms of public transport.

As a result, we end up incurring incredible cost - whether financial or efficiency.

Incidentally, the track diversion includes a (albeit minor) road without a pavement. Could NR be sued if a pedestrian or biker has an accident using their suggested alternative? Probably not because it's a road and for some reason that's ok.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

How much would a footbridge cost?

Vehicles can use the underpass further along the line, a footbridge would likely make the crossing unnecessary.

 

[30907]

“Would you be willing to sign the paperwork that says a crossing known to have safety issues should stay open, certain in the knowledge that if somebody dies on the crossing you’ll be spending some time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure?”

On Thursday a poster wrote the above & his reply today failed to provide any example of a manager who had gone to prison or got a personal fine or even any criminal conviction for a crossing death. I challenged the poster to do so. He couldn’t.

And explained why upthread.

 

[Starmill]

At a higher level what I fail to understand is the complete disconnect between acceptable risk crossing a road versus a railway. Today I observed a pelican crossing with the button inoperative on my side of the road. Did anyone think "I had better use the 3 adjacent working road crossings to box the square around this risk"? Not that I observed: at best they stopped, looked, listened and took some responsibility for their risk taking action.
If a car hit someone doing this, would the local council be scared of being sued out of existence, or the roads manager be sleepless for fear of going to prison for providing faulty equipment and failing to close off the crossing? I doubt it.

To be clear: I do believe the problem is the view of society in this disconnect and not NR. I agree, each preventable death is one too many but for some reason as a society we accept it on the road but have zero tolerance on other forms of public transport.

As a result, we end up incurring incredible cost - whether financial or efficiency.

Incidentally, the track diversion includes a (albeit minor) road without a pavement. Could NR be sued if a pedestrian or biker has an accident using their suggested alternative? Probably not because it's a road and for some reason that's ok.

If your question is: should road vehicle drivers be obliged in law to drive more defensively in areas where people may be trying to cross the road, such as street corners and on marked crossings where lights are either not installed, not functioning, or not averse to the road traffic, the answer from me is an unequivocal yes.

Pedestrians obviously don't have carte blanche to cross a road when they want and just expect car drivers to stop for them, but car drivers in urban areas should be far more ready to give way to people trying to cross at corners or marked crossing points without lights.

Road deaths where motor vehicles kill cyclists or pedestrians are a horrible tragedy for society and speak of the shockingly poor design standards of our cities and suburbs, and the disregard for other road users displayed by a small proportion of motorists.

 

[Bikeman78]

- The Times, Scotland edition, Monday 9th August 2021.

I quoted the article in full because it will be behind The Times paywall.

I remember that Highlandspring mentioned this crossing in another thread:



Although Network Rail might have acted lawfully, it seems that they failed to consult effectively with the local community and the crossing users.

Is this the crossing on Ben Alder Road? Those gates don't look very hard to climb over.

If Dalwhinnie is deemed to be risky, I'm surprised that the foot crossing south of Christ's Hospital (near Itchingfield Junction) is still open with eight trains per hour. Up trains come round the curve at a fair old speed.

 

[IanXC]

For those questioning the safety record of this crossing here is the data:

• Individual risk rating: D (High)
• Collective risk rating: 5 (High)
• Types of trains: Passenger & Freight
• Line speed: 80
• Trains per day: 32
• Usage:
  • 35 Pedestrians or Cyclists
• Misuse history: Nil incidents in year prior to assessment date (Sep-2015), - Nil incidents since.
• Near-miss history: Nil incidents in year prior to assessment date (Sep-2015), - Nil incidents since.
• Accident history: Nil incidents in year prior to assessment date (Sep-2015), - Nil incidents since.
• Key risk factors:
  • Low Sighting Time
  • Large Numbers of Users
  • Deliberate Misuse or User Error
• Current protection arrangements:
  • Signage
  • Gates or stiles
  • Whistle boards provided on the rail approaches - train horn audible warning given (06:00 to 23:59)
• Individual Risk Rating is the risk to individual users of the crossing. It is presented as a single letter, with A being the highest risk and M being the lowest.
• Collective Risk Rating is the overall risk of any incident involving any person or vehicle on the crossing, including train staff and passengers as well as users of the crossing. It is presented as a number, with 1 being the highest risk and 13 being the lowest. This is the most important rating when prioritising safety measures at level crossings.

Ben Alder Level Crossing - The ABC Railway Guide

Ben Alder Level Crossing at the ABC Railway Guide.

abcrailwayguide.uk

This site doesn't appear to have been updated for the latest data, however the suggestions posted that usage has been increasing on this crossing will only have resulted in the crossing receiving a higher risk rating that shown above.

 

[infobleep]

You’ll have to trust me here, but if you are walking out of the Ben Alder mountains to
Dalwhinnie, that extra mile will be excruciating! It’s a long way after a very long day up 6 hills. Most sensible people bike in and out, and thus the extra mile is neither here nor there.

Not everyone who can walk is able to ride a bike.

I'm not saying the crossing must remain open, just sticking up for people like myself who can't ride a bike but can walk up a mountain.

 

[Taunton]

If the crossing was left open in its current format, with the risk assessment indicating it shouldn’t be, and someone ends up dead, the railway is in court; indeed individual managers’ liberty is at risk ... certain in the knowledge that if somebody dies on the crossing you’ll be spending some time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure?

This is surely complete hyperbole. No railway managers have ended up in jail.

The engineers who oversee the M1 motorway know that, on statistics, there will be fatal accidents on it this year. They are not in prospect of being jailed as a result. We have seen the recent publicity about "smart motorways" taking out hard shoulders, and coroners comments on this after accidents. No engineers on the motorway network have been jailed, nor is this in prospect.

Meanwhile, seeing the analysis data quoted above, it describes a "Key risk factor" as deliberate misuse, a few lines below saying there has been no misuse history of the crossing since records began. Makes you wonder how overhyped for the railway's convenience such studies are. Did nobody ever pick this inconsistency up?

 

[IanXC]

Meanwhile, seeing the analysis data quoted above, it describes a "Key risk factor" as deliberate misuse, a few lines below saying there has been no misuse history of the crossing since records began. Makes you wonder how overhyped for the railway's convenience such studies are. Did nobody ever pick this inconsistency up?

That is until the date of the assessment there. Which is not the most up to date, and does not take account of the increase in use that has occurred in the interim.

 

[hermit]

That is until the date of the assessment there. Which is not the most up to date, and does not take account of the increase in use that has occurred in the interim.

But has there been any evidence of ‘deliberate misuse’? Seems unlikely in this location, and with the type of people making the crossing. These are people crossing with a purpose, not bored teenagers.

 

[Maxfly]

“Would you be willing to sign the paperwork that says a crossing known to have safety issues should stay open, certain in the knowledge that if somebody dies on the crossing you’ll be spending some time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure?”

On Thursday a poster wrote the above & his reply today failed to provide any example of a manager who had gone to prison or got a personal fine or even any criminal conviction for a crossing death. I challenged the poster to do so. He couldn’t.

NR is apparently shaping redundancy payments to encourage older managers to leave.
The rumoured reason is to rid the industry of the
“It can’t be done” attitude as reflected by the “Her Majesty’s Pleasure” poster.

The “can’t be done/isn’t done that way” types can then be replaced by open minded younger managers who want to solve problems rather than say no to every challenge.

People on this topic have come up with “Can Do” suggestions that would satisfy both NR & the Munro baggers & the many others who want to get from one side of the railway to the other at this 130 year old crossing.

Lets hope the best of NR are reading this thread.

If a signaller can be charged after the death of a member of public due to their actions as happened at Moreton on Lugg does common sense not tell you that if a Manager overrides the system in place to keep a crossing open, that they are then leaving themselves open if an incident occurs?
Unfortunately the only ideas on here are ones that sound great when thrown into an online thread on a forum from the comfort of an armchair but in the real world they are of no use. So I doubt Network Rail would be reading them and thinking ‘wow that’s great give that person a consultants fee’

 

[30907]

Apologies if this has been said already, but an access path on estate land on and through a gate onto the Down platform would surely solve the problem - or would that mean the footbridge threatening to collapse from over-use?

 

[Wolfie]

“Would you be willing to sign the paperwork that says a crossing known to have safety issues should stay open, certain in the knowledge that if somebody dies on the crossing you’ll be spending some time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure?”

On Thursday a poster wrote the above & his reply today failed to provide any example of a manager who had gone to prison or got a personal fine or even any criminal conviction for a crossing death. I challenged the poster to do so. He couldn’t.

NR is apparently shaping redundancy payments to encourage older managers to leave.
The rumoured reason is to rid the industry of the
“It can’t be done” attitude as reflected by the “Her Majesty’s Pleasure” poster.

The “can’t be done/isn’t done that way” types can then be replaced by open minded younger managers who want to solve problems rather than say no to every challenge.

People on this topic have come up with “Can Do” suggestions that would satisfy both NR & the Munro baggers & the many others who want to get from one side of the railway to the other at this 130 year old crossing.

Lets hope the best of NR are reading this thread.

What an utterly ridiculous post. Just wait until one of your "bright young things" is facing a QC asking 'did it never occur to you that more experienced managers didn't do it that way for good reasons, what made you think that you knew better'... Followed by serious jail time. But of course internet pontificators won't be the ones in the dock.

 

[Killingworth]

Apologies if this has been said already, but an access path on estate land on and through a gate onto the Down platform would surely solve the problem - or would that mean the footbridge threatening to collapse from over-use?

At least twice, most recently my post 69.

 

[Bald Rick]

Would you be willing to sign the paperwork that says a crossing known to have safety issues should stay open, certain in the knowledge that if somebody dies on the crossing you’ll be spending some time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure?”

On Thursday a poster wrote the above & his reply today failed to provide any example of a manager who had gone to prison or got a personal fine or even any criminal conviction for a crossing death. I challenged the poster to do so. He couldn’t.

I couldn’t ... because they’ve done their job right!!

This is surely complete hyperbole. No railway managers have ended up in jail.

As above. I’ll PM you.

Not everyone who can walk is able to ride a bike.

Fair point.

 

[Meerkat]

Must be a high risk in the summer - presumably walkers with a long day ahead might well be starting before 6am when the trains start sounding horns?

 

[Bald Rick]

Must be a high risk in the summer - presumably walkers with a long day ahead might well be starting before 6am when the trains start sounding horns?

I forget the specifics at this crossing, but sounding horns is not effective in some circumstances.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

If a crossing is blocked by big high locked gates and tired walkers with rucksacks try to climb over, they could easily slip and be seriously injured.

 

[Wolfie]

If a crossing is blocked by big high locked gates and tired walkers with rucksacks try to climb over, they could easily slip and be seriously injured.

If a "crossing" is blocked by big high locked gates most normal sensible logical people will realise that it isn't intended for general public use.

 

[30907]

At least twice, most recently my post 69.

Apologies - didn't read thoroughly enough. Should have done a search.
And the reported poor state of the station footbridge has been mentioned too - I was just going by a photo!

 

[Falcon1200]

NR is apparently shaping redundancy payments to encourage older managers to leave.
The rumoured reason is to rid the industry of the
“It can’t be done” attitude as reflected by the “Her Majesty’s Pleasure” poster.

The “can’t be done/isn’t done that way” types can then be replaced by open minded younger managers who want to solve problems rather than say no to every challenge.

Perhaps those older managers have 20, 30 or 40 years of railway experience, and in many cases have attended fatalities and helped pick up the pieces, thus giving them good reason to be more cautious than bright young things.