Going across a level crossing with a long slow vehicle

[oddiesjack]

While checking out a route to get my traction engine home, I discovered I would be crossing the ECML at Grove Road level crossing just south of Retford station. I didn't notice a sign telling drivers of long, high or slow vehicles to contact Network Rail, but I am concerned that the barriers may come down while part of my road train (Engine + drawbar trailer + LW landrover on A-bar + caravan) is still on the crossing. I am sure that whatever delay is programmed into the exit barrier would not allow for 80ft of road train travelling at 4mph!

So, is the adjacent signalbox still manned, whereby I could ask the signalman directly if I have time to cross?

Or, is there a telephone number I'd have to ring to ascertain the same information?

 

[dave_wm]

According to the sign on the lights, you'd need to call 01904 525 896.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=gr...d=KRvSGi0iyMeb2qMfJuJE9w&cbp=12,74.89,,1,9.52

As to whether the box is manned, I'm afraid I don't know.

Hope that helps

 

[GB]

Grove Rd is monitored and operated by the signaller/crossing keeper. There is no requirement to contact the signaller/crossing keeper of slow moving vehicles on full barrier crossings...locally monitored or CCTV.

 

[oddiesjack]

Thanks, GB.

 

[Robsignals]

Grove Rd is monitored and operated by the signaller/crossing keeper. There is no requirement to contact the signaller/crossing keeper of slow moving vehicles on full barrier crossings...locally monitored or CCTV.

What about the new Object Detector full barrier crossings which are essentially automatic. There's no danger to road users but should they have signs requiring drivers of slow vehicles to phone?

 

[185]

I think as a precaution, I would still call York IECC on 01904 525896, as a traction engine would probably qualify as an unusual load, better safe than not, especially with it being the ECML.

Besides, it will give those bored chaps in the IECC box something to giggle at on their cameras.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think as a precaution, I would still call York IECC on 01904 525896, as a traction engine would probably qualify as an unusual load, better safe than not, especially with it being the ECML.

If it isn't the stem locomotives setting fire to the lineside causing delays it's the steam powered traction engines trying to the cross the line

But in all seriousness I'd agree with the above, if for no other reason than it would be something of a courtesy as I imagine it will take you a bit of time to make it across the crossing.

 

[Tomnick]

...but York isn't the supervising signal box, Doncaster is. The crossing itself is controlled by one of the gate boxes (eithere Ranskill or Carlton), so I suspect ringing the number on the plate (does it go to Control?) might cause more problems and confusion than it avoids. As above, there's no need to ring anyone - the crossing keeper will see you on the CCTV so can stop the exit barriers lowering until you're clear (and the new OD crossings should do the same!)

 

[Toots]

Agreed,if there isn't a sign instructing you to telephone with a large,low or slow moving vehicle then you don't.

 

[Ploughman]

At any level crossing.
If in doubt ring up or ask the crossing keeper if there is one.

There should be a phone available with a direct link to the controlling box if no crossing keeper, they may ask you to wait for a suitable gap in services and to ring back on completion as confirmation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As regards loads over a certain length with a possible need for a slow speed, is there not any requirement to notify the requisite railway authority in advance, so they can issue formal notice to any manned crossing points? Would the Police also need to have advance notification of such a load in terms of traffic management ?

 

[michael769]

I would reccomend that the OP calls the abnormal loads team at Network Rail in advance for advice, their number is 01908 783 140. In particular it would be prudent to check that there is sufficient safe clearance for he engine's chimney under the overhead electric lines.

If the vehicle exceeds 44 tonnes or falls within the scope of STGO it will not be permitted to cross unless Network Rail have been given the relevant statutory notification.

 

[Tomnick]

At any level crossing.
If in doubt ring up or ask the crossing keeper if there is one.

There should be a phone available with a direct link to the controlling box if no crossing keeper, they may ask you to wait for a suitable gap in services and to ring back on completion as confirmation.

There are generally no phones provided for use by the public at CCTV crossings.

Paul - I don't know whether there's any formal notification process for abnormal loads, but I don't particularly see why Signalmen or Crossing Keepers need to be involved at CCTV or MCB crossings - if the crossing is obstructed, they can either delay starting the sequence, stop the sequence or as a last resort raise the barriers again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just a quick note with my apologies - I overlooked michael769's reply whilst typing my own. I'm not surprised to learn that the railway is included in the statutory notification process, although I wasn't sure - I'd be interested to learn what Network Rail does with the information, and whether it filters down to those on the ground.

 

[oddiesjack]

In answer to various questions raised...

The height to the top of the chimney is only 11ft 3", which is considerably less than that of any of the (railway) steam locos that have hauled excursions under the wires, so I hadn't seen this as an issue.

The weight of the engine is around 11 tons, with my road train adding possibly another 5 or 6 tons, so again this isn't a problem.

The maximum length of engine and trailer is several foot short of the limit before it becomes an "abnormal load", so there is no need to inform the police of my movements.

 

[michael769]

I would say in that case that other than (as a courtesy) calling the signaler on the number provided before crossing that there is nothing more to do.

While they will see the obstruction on the CCTV and can delay the crossing sequence that would almost certainly cause delays to train services, so I am confident they would (as will several hundred passengers) appreciate the opportunity to get you to await a suitably long gap in services to avoid this.

 

[bluenoxid]

If you have concerns, Network Rail has a Community Helpline

If a level crossing or any other part of the railway is causing a problem, or if you simply want more information, contact our National Helpline:
08457 11 41 41

 

[Toots]

In answer to various questions raised...

The height to the top of the chimney is only 11ft 3", which is considerably less than that of any of the (railway) steam locos that have hauled excursions under the wires, so I hadn't seen this as an issue.

The weight of the engine is around 11 tons, with my road train adding possibly another 5 or 6 tons, so again this isn't a problem.

The maximum length of engine and trailer is several foot short of the limit before it becomes an "abnormal load", so there is no need to inform the police of my movements.

If there is no notice asking you to phone if you have a a large slow moving vehicle,then don't phone.As a Signalman with a CCTV crossing I certainly wouldn't expect ,nor want, a call even as a courtesy and I suspect neither would any other Signaller who was half decent at the job.Just drive over it as you would normally with a car.

 

[DarloRich]

I have to say if it were me I would park up short of the crossing, contact the crossing keeper in his box, advise him of the length, speed and weight of my vehicle along with the estimated time it would take my road train to cross the crossing. I would want to obtain his consent to cross and his confirmation that there was a enough time to cross to prevent me fouling the crossing.

I might also be tempted to contact NR on the number provided BEFORE I set out to inform them of my route and interaction with the railway. I would back that up with an email to a named individual with pictures of my vehicle train and my route.

That way you have done what you can to avoid any unpleasantness

I appreciate this might not be what you are required to do but it might be what you want to do!

 

[GB]

As already said, there is no requirement to contact the operator in these circumstances. By phoning them up when you don't need to you could be adding to their workload. Providing the crossing sequence has not started (including the steady amber) then you have no unpleasantness to answer for. If it delays the crossing sequence by a minute or so then so be it.

..and as said above, phone numbers at MCB crossings do not necessarily go through to the crossing operator anyway.

 

[PFX]

The Highway Code mentions this in relation to unusual or slow loads.

"294

Railway telephones. If you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle, a long, low vehicle with a risk of grounding, or herding animals, a train could arrive before you are clear of the crossing. You MUST obey any sign instructing you to use the railway telephone to obtain permission to cross. You MUST also telephone when clear of the crossing if requested to do so."

 

[DarloRich]

As already said, there is no requirement to contact the operator in these circumstances. By phoning them up when you don't need to you could be adding to their workload. Providing the crossing sequence has not started (including the steady amber) then you have no unpleasantness to answer for. If it delays the crossing sequence by a minute or so then so be it.

..and as said above, phone numbers at MCB crossings do not necessarily go through to the crossing operator anyway.

I agree there is no requirment - that is why i said you might WANT to get in touch. NR wont care if you call them - that is what the phone number is for

At this crossing there is a box so i would ask the keeper directly if it was safe to cross. It seems a prudent approach when you are responsible for a slow moving long load.

 

[Tomnick]

As previously stated, Grove Road crossing is worked by CCTV from Ranskill, not the adjacent structure (which I believe is, at most, only used if the crossing is taken on local control). Members of the public have no way of contacting the crossing keeper directly.

 

[oddiesjack]

I've read all the responses, which have been very helpful. My initial thoughts WERE to ring the 01904 number, purely as a courtesy, but taking the advice of the railway professionals who have replied, I will just trundle across. My road train is going to be shorter anyway, due to the lack of availability of the Landrover tomorrow, which is when I'll be crossing.

I also posed the same question to Network Rail via their "contact us" page.
This was done on Tuesday, and it has taken them till 10.30 this morning to even send out the automated "Thank you for your email" response!

 

[Tomnick]

I think you'll be fine with that approach! A quick calculation in my head suggests that you'll be clear of Tue crossing in 15 seconds or so anyway (80' at 4mph), which would at worst delay the lowering sequence by a few seconds. Certainly wouldn't irritate me (in fact it'd be a refreshing change from the usual mix of cars and tractors) as much as some of the other road users do!

 

[1018509]

I think as a precaution, I would still call York IECC on 01904 525896, as a traction engine would probably qualify as an unusual load, better safe than not, especially with it being the ECML.

Besides, it will give those bored chaps in the IECC box something to giggle at on their cameras.

My feelings exactly, rather a wasted phone call than a heap of twisted metal and bodies.

 

[GB]

Why would there be a heap of twisted metal and bodies?

 

[DarloRich]

Why would there be a heap of twisted metal and bodies?

i assume IF the vehicles were stuck by a train.

It is possible the train of vehicles could have set off whilst the lights were not showing only to be half way across before the barriers came down

I appreciate the crossing is monitored, the vehicle is not THAT slow and hopefully the protecting signal would not be cleared if it was foul of the crossing but still........................

(perhaps it is to many recent risk workshops to blame!)

 

[Tomnick]

If the risk was significant, surely there'd be a requirement for such vehicles to phone at CCTV crossings too? What about folk with no mobile phone, or one with a flat battery or no signal? If the controlling signal box or gate box is adjacent, a knock on the door wouldn't hurt (I certainly wouldn't object, but some would!). In this case, I think the risk of confusion from phoning Control who'd phone (probably) the Signalman who'd then phone the Crossing Keeper would outweigh the possibility of any such vehicle becoming trapped on the crossing.

 

[Robsignals]

If the risk was significant, surely there'd be a requirement for such vehicles to phone at CCTV crossings too? What about folk with no mobile phone, or one with a flat battery or no signal? If the controlling signal box or gate box is adjacent, a knock on the door wouldn't hurt (I certainly wouldn't object, but some would!). In this case, I think the risk of confusion from phoning Control who'd phone (probably) the Signalman who'd then phone the Crossing Keeper would outweigh the possibility of any such vehicle becoming trapped on the crossing.

The Moreton on Lugg accident was due to calls from a UWC distracting the signaller who assumed a train had passed without him noticing it and raising the barriers just as it approached. Of course that can't happen if Approach Locking is provided which it must be at all CCTV crossings.

In this situatuion perhaps the OP could look at the timetable and find a gap when no trains should pass, alternatively if it's possible stop before the crossing and wait until just after a train passes to minimise the potential for causing delay.

 

[GB]

i assume IF the vehicles were stuck by a train.

It is possible the train of vehicles could have set off whilst the lights were not showing only to be half way across before the barriers came down

I appreciate the crossing is monitored, the vehicle is not THAT slow and hopefully the protecting signal would not be cleared if it was foul of the crossing but still........................

(perhaps it is to many recent risk workshops to blame!)

But you could then say the same for any road vehicle.