Level crossing accident on Arun Valley Line 17/02/18

[Signal Head]

Minimum length of a track circuit is /was 40 metres ie longer than any wheelbase. I don't think this is relevant either.

Minimum effective length is now 20m, rounded up from metric equivalent of 20y in recent standards. That is to ensure it cannot be straddled by a bogie vehicle, and applies to sections of a track circuit through S&C, where the total length is greater. There are greater minima for certain types of track circuit, eg AC and frequency tracks, for technical reasons.

 

[Robsignals]

40 metres is about double the minimum track circuit length. No rail vehicle has a wheelbase anything near as long as that.

It was a long time ago.

 

[Robsignals]

While the facts of this tragedy are not yet known I think there may be ways of improving safety of AHB and AOC crossings generally.

Larger/more eye catching approach signs with red "DANGER STOP WHEN LIGHTS SHOW"
At the crossing flashing Red LED "STOP" sign placed at drivers eye-line level which changes to rapid flashing for second train, existing "ANOTHER TRAIN..." sign replaced with red "DANGER TRAIN APPROACHING WHEN LIGHTS FLASH, SECOND TRAIN OTHER WAY IF LIGHTS CONTINUE"
Sign nearby "PEDESTRIANS STAY WELL CLEAR WHEN LIGHTS FLASH OR ALARM SOUNDS"

Safety ads to concentrate on red light cameras and resulting Fines and Points but finishing with a train approaching at speed freezing just before impact with a car and "...or it could cost you everything!"

 

[al78]

While the facts of this tragedy are not yet known I think there may be ways of improving safety of AHB and AOC crossings generally.

Larger/more eye catching approach signs with red "DANGER STOP WHEN LIGHTS SHOW"
At the crossing flashing Red LED "STOP" sign placed at drivers eye-line level which changes to rapid flashing for second train, existing "ANOTHER TRAIN..." sign replaced with red "DANGER TRAIN APPROACHING WHEN LIGHTS FLASH, SECOND TRAIN OTHER WAY IF LIGHTS CONTINUE"
Sign nearby "PEDESTRIANS STAY WELL CLEAR WHEN LIGHTS FLASH OR ALARM SOUNDS"

Safety ads to concentrate on red light cameras and resulting Fines and Points but finishing with a train approaching at speed freezing just before impact with a car and "...or it could cost you everything!"

Might help, although I wonder if the primary reason for these incidents is not because drivers are ignorant of the dangers (how hard is it to work out that a driver in a car will not do well in an impact with a train?), but because drivers are impatient and chance it. As far as the driver is concerned nothing bad will happen because it takes them seconds to zig-zag around the barriers, and the barriers are down for longer than that before the train arrives. Drivers break many other traffic regulations for similar reasons.

 

[Chris M]

@al78 I think that is a key point. The period of time available for driver error (deliberate or otherwise) is very significantly shorter at an AHB crossing than in pretty much every other situation a driver will encounter, including other types of level crossing.
For example the sequence at the lifting bridge near me is:
1. Lights and warning tone start
2. After about 30-40 seconds the entrance barriers start to close, taking about 10-20 seconds to close.
3. About 10 seconds after the entrance barriers are fully down or the bridge is clear of pedestrians (whichever is longer) the entrance barriers start closing, taking 10-20 seconds to complete the movement.
4. About 15 seconds after the barriers close the bridge starts lifting.
So there is a couple of minutes after the lights start flashing before it becomes unsafe to cross.

 

[bramling]

Might help, although I wonder if the primary reason for these incidents is not because drivers are ignorant of the dangers (how hard is it to work out that a driver in a car will not do well in an impact with a train?), but because drivers are impatient and chance it. As far as the driver is concerned nothing bad will happen because it takes them seconds to zig-zag around the barriers, and the barriers are down for longer than that before the train arrives. Drivers break many other traffic regulations for similar reasons.

I suspect, amongst other reasons, there is a subset of people who for whatever reason simply have poor judgement of risk and an inability to assess the consequences associated with an action. It's a simple fact that people are different - personally I tend to think things through quite heavily, perhaps too much on occasions, thinking through the potential "what ifs?" associated with an action. However a friend of mine lives by the spur-of-the-moment and does everything by impulse. I've only been to A&E twice in my life, he's in A&E probably once every few months. One can educate and train to the heart's content, however I think for people who live by impulse the only way to stop them doing something potentially dangerous is physical prevention -- in this case a full barrier crossing instead of an AHB.

 

[GB]

While the facts of this tragedy are not yet known I think there may be ways of improving safety of AHB and AOC crossings generally.

Larger/more eye catching approach signs with red "DANGER STOP WHEN LIGHTS SHOW"
At the crossing flashing Red LED "STOP" sign placed at drivers eye-line level which changes to rapid flashing for second train, existing "ANOTHER TRAIN..." sign replaced with red "DANGER TRAIN APPROACHING WHEN LIGHTS FLASH, SECOND TRAIN OTHER WAY IF LIGHTS CONTINUE"
Sign nearby "PEDESTRIANS STAY WELL CLEAR WHEN LIGHTS FLASH OR ALARM SOUNDS"

Safety ads to concentrate on red light cameras and resulting Fines and Points but finishing with a train approaching at speed freezing just before impact with a car and "...or it could cost you everything!"

My god really? If (at an AHB) long red and white horizontal poles (which also have lights) and big alternating flashing red lights as well as the current road signs aren't enough to either get your attention or convey their message then adding more signs and lights isn't going to work.

...and if you start adding more signs and lights then that will eventually lead to people ignoring them or potentially causing further confusion (there is such a thing as too much information). It should be fundamentally clear to anyone with a drivers license....RED LIGHTS MEAN STOP.

 

[furnessvale]

@al78
So there is a couple of minutes after the lights start flashing before it becomes unsafe to cross.

Which is precisely the point I was making earlier in the thread when I suggested that lengthening the sequence because of misuse is counterproductive, in that it only encourages even more misuse.

 

[Bertiethebobby]

My theory: based on his experience of waiting minutes before a train arrives at MCB crossings and the common driver behaviour at MCBs and traffic lights of continuing past red lights for a few seconds after showing/changing without consequence he completely believed the same applied at AHBs. If so it's a case of widespread low level driver misbehaviour setting a fatal trap for the majority of drivers who can't be expected to have experience of AHBs operating. Of course all red lights mean Danger unless obeyed but the average person is not to know that a few are catastrophically dangerous if disobeyed.

I totally agree about the widespread low level driver misbehaviour. At a set of traffic lights near me there is no time lapse between one set of lights changing from amber to red and the other set changing from red to red and amber. It is simply not safe to set off without looking as there will always be 3 to 4 cars crossing on red. Possibly the first one will cross as they change to red, but the next 3 effectively jump the lights.

Another example is that everyone knows (or should know) the danger of tailgating and yet on the M5 yesterday driving along the stretch that says "keep 2 chevrons apart" at 65-70 mph there was a lorry behind me barely keeping 2 feet apart!
Recently I was going to work at about 7.30 in the morning, keeping to the 30mph as I always try to, but a chap in a 4x4 behind wasn't content to wait for the de-restricted sign in 100 yards time and overtook me, going the wrong side of 2 keep left signs to do so! I bought a dash cam after that episode.

The point about low level offending setting a fatal trap is absolutely correct in my view. These sort of drivers get away with this type of behaviour time and again until the day that they decide to argue with a train and there's only ever going to be one result of that.

As for signage, how about a "Danger of death" type sign like they have on electricity sub stations.

 

[eastdyke]

The penalties for crossing misuse are not enough.
Following on from this incident there have been (more) calls to close a crossing in Toddington Lane, Wick. There is a report in Littlehampton Gazette. There were new cameras installed at the Toddington Lane level crossing in 2015, since then 651 motorists have been caught and prosecuted for abusing the red warning lights.
651 prosecutions in less than 3 years!
The penalties for this offence need re-visiting. The deterrent effect of 'at least 3 points' and a fine is simply not reflective of a serious offence.
How about a minimum ban of 12 months and a fine? It is after all (very) dangerous driving!

Network Rail should be asking the DfT and ORR to both push for this.

https://www.littlehamptongazette.co...-level-crossing-after-tragic-deaths-1-8396841

A councillor is calling for a level crossing in Littlehampton to be closed after a recent rail tragedy which claimed the lives of a man and his grandson.
Arun district councillor Mike Northeast is calling on the council and the developers of the North Littlehampton housing estate to speed up building the proposed Lyminster bypass and road improvements so the level crossing in Toddington Lane in Wick can be closed.

His campaign comes after William Hallett, 15, and his grandfather Barry Hearnshaw, 72, died when a car and a train collided at the level crossing in Emms Lane, Barns Green, on February 17.

The crossing only had half barriers – the same as the Toddington Lane crossing.

Mr Northeast said: “Because of all the new house building and its usage as a tip rat run, the increasing volume of traffic now using Toddington Lane is causing major concerns about the safety of the level crossing and the earlier it can be closed and a proper footbridge provided the better.”

Mr Northeast met with Network Rail’s level crossing manager Clive Robey at the Arundel signal box, where level crossings are controlled.

He was told that since new cameras were installed at the Toddington Lane level crossing in 2015, 651 motorists have been caught and prosecuted for abusing the red warning lights.

The councillor said: “I’m astounded that people are still prepared to risk their own lives and compromise the safety of so many others at this level crossing even after all the recent high-profile media stories.”

He also called for families to warn their children of the ‘real dangers’ of playing near the crossing. Last year, MP Nick Gibb also called for the crossing to get an upgrade.

Mr Robey said an offence is committed when a vehicle passes over the white stop line while the red lights are flashing, leading to at least three points on a driving licence and a fine.

 

[Varney]

The penalties for crossing misuse are not enough.
Following on from this incident there have been (more) calls to close a crossing in Toddington Lane, Wick. There is a report in Littlehampton Gazette. There were new cameras installed at the Toddington Lane level crossing in 2015, since then 651 motorists have been caught and prosecuted for abusing the red warning lights.
651 prosecutions in less than 3 years!
The penalties for this offence need re-visiting. The deterrent effect of 'at least 3 points' and a fine is simply not reflective of a serious offence.
How about a minimum ban of 12 months and a fine? It is after all (very) dangerous driving!

Network Rail should be asking the DfT and ORR to both push for this.

https://www.littlehamptongazette.co...-level-crossing-after-tragic-deaths-1-8396841

This crossing is local to me and is set to become busier still with all the new houses going up. It is also the only AHB crossing in the local area, where existing full barrier crossings are closed for fairly long periods. It's likely the misuse is because the road users think they will be delayed for a while (as at other crossings nearby) and will take the risk as they don't realise the increased danger at doing it at this crossing.

You'd think they would notice they big yellow camera boxes too, but I suspect they are to busy or important in their posh SUVs on their way to their new build box house to be concerned with those!

Anyway, as the council and the developer are still dragging their heels over the replacement overbridge, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there isn't a significant incident at this crossing before it is finally built

 

[Tio Terry]

While the facts of this tragedy are not yet known I think there may be ways of improving safety of AHB and AOC crossings generally.

Larger/more eye catching approach signs with red "DANGER STOP WHEN LIGHTS SHOW"
At the crossing flashing Red LED "STOP" sign placed at drivers eye-line level which changes to rapid flashing for second train, existing "ANOTHER TRAIN..." sign replaced with red "DANGER TRAIN APPROACHING WHEN LIGHTS FLASH, SECOND TRAIN OTHER WAY IF LIGHTS CONTINUE"
Sign nearby "PEDESTRIANS STAY WELL CLEAR WHEN LIGHTS FLASH OR ALARM SOUNDS"

Safety ads to concentrate on red light cameras and resulting Fines and Points but finishing with a train approaching at speed freezing just before impact with a car and "...or it could cost you everything!"

Many years ago the signs at AHB's used to say STOP WHILST LIGHTS FLASH, these all had to be changed because whilst means "until" in Yorkshire.

At that time I got involved with deciding the wording of road signs at level crossings. One of the things to come out of the research was that road users won't read long messages and that providing a sign in English won't help those who don't read English, that's why most traffic signs are graphics. Sign's containing 13 words quite simply will be ignored because drivers will not take the time to read and understand them. A change in flash rate and yodel alarm frequency will have much greater effect than a lengthy sign.

But the safest level crossing is still a closed level crossing and NR are doing a pretty good job of closing as many as they can.

 

[eastdyke]

.....................
But the safest level crossing is still a closed level crossing and NR are doing a pretty good job of closing as many as they can.

Sure but NR doesn't have anything like enough money for this. Many crossings closed have been footway crossings which, whilst posing great risks to the users, do not pose a high risk of derailment to the trains.
In the meantime for service improvements level crossing risk is being assessed (rightly) but costs are being attributed to service enhancements when most of the risk accrues to the trains that run already.

 

[6Gman]

I think for people who live by impulse the only way to stop them doing something potentially dangerous is physical prevention -- in this case a full barrier crossing instead of an AHB.

But this raises its own problems doesn't it?

AIUI the purpose of half barriers is to allow vehicles to exit the crossing if, for example, they misjudge the lights, stall on the crossing etc. This could be addressed by leaving a gap between the first and second barrier closing BUT this would extend the whole process further and - potentially - lead to further abuse.

And the first time somebody stalled on a crossing and then couldn't drive off there would, presumably, be calls for half-barriers to be used.

No easy answers.

 

[Tio Terry]

Sure but NR doesn't have anything like enough money for this. Many crossings closed have been footway crossings which, whilst posing great risks to the users, do not pose a high risk of derailment to the trains.
In the meantime for service improvements level crossing risk is being assessed (rightly) but costs are being attributed to service enhancements when most of the risk accrues to the trains that run already.

We had Ufton Nervet which resulted in a derailment and deaths to rail travellers, but that's quite rare and was the result of deliberate action in that it was suicide. The vast majority of level crossing collisions don't result in derailments of any sort and normally the road user comes off worse in a big way. The risk to the railway at level crossings is much less than the risk to the road user.

 

[Muzer]

But this raises its own problems doesn't it?

AIUI the purpose of half barriers is to allow vehicles to exit the crossing if, for example, they misjudge the lights, stall on the crossing etc. This could be addressed by leaving a gap between the first and second barrier closing BUT this would extend the whole process further and - potentially - lead to further abuse.

And the first time somebody stalled on a crossing and then couldn't drive off there would, presumably, be calls for half-barriers to be used.

No easy answers.

A full-barrier crossing would be actively monitored in some way - either by humans (locally or by CCTV), or quite commonly now, by obstacle detectors using a variety of technologies like LIDAR. It would also need interlocking with the signalling system and provide time for trains to stop should the obstacle not be cleared in time, which would mean much longer road closure times.

 

[furnessvale]

But the safest level crossing is still a closed level crossing and NR are doing a pretty good job of closing as many as they can.

Many years ago the level crossing at Hoghton on the Preston-Blackburn line was bypassed by an overbridge.

Sadly the local authority would not allow the crossing to be closed and, to this day, unless things have changed fairly recently, the crossing remains a potential danger to road and rail users.

 

[Elecman]

Houghton crossing still definately exists and was involved in an incident with a road vehicle within the last couple of years

 

[bramling]

But this raises its own problems doesn't it?

AIUI the purpose of half barriers is to allow vehicles to exit the crossing if, for example, they misjudge the lights, stall on the crossing etc. This could be addressed by leaving a gap between the first and second barrier closing BUT this would extend the whole process further and - potentially - lead to further abuse.

And the first time somebody stalled on a crossing and then couldn't drive off there would, presumably, be calls for half-barriers to be used.

No easy answers.

It's quite feasible to have CCTV crossings everywhere - or even go back to the days of crossing keepers. Naturally this introduces other issues like extending the time road traffic has to wait, plus of course cost.

 

[Robsignals]

Might help, although I wonder if the primary reason for these incidents is not because drivers are ignorant of the dangers (how hard is it to work out that a driver in a car will not do well in an impact with a train?), but because drivers are impatient and chance it. As far as the driver is concerned nothing bad will happen because it takes them seconds to zig-zag around the barriers, and the barriers are down for longer than that before the train arrives. Drivers break many other traffic regulations for similar reasons.

Hopefully clear signage can only help and NR have covered themselves.

I suspect, amongst other reasons, there is a subset of people who for whatever reason simply have poor judgement of risk and an inability to assess the consequences associated with an action. It's a simple fact that people are different - personally I tend to think things through quite heavily, perhaps too much on occasions, thinking through the potential "what ifs?" associated with an action. However a friend of mine lives by the spur-of-the-moment and does everything by impulse. I've only been to A&E twice in my life, he's in A&E probably once every few months. One can educate and train to the heart's content, however I think for people who live by impulse the only way to stop them doing something potentially dangerous is physical prevention -- in this case a full barrier crossing instead of an AHB.

I think at least 10% of drivers should never have a Licence due to failing an attitude test or being found too impulsive, by reducing accidents and selfish driving this would reduce congestion greatly improving traffic flow.

I totally agree about the widespread low level driver misbehaviour. At a set of traffic lights near me there is no time lapse between one set of lights changing from amber to red and the other set changing from red to red and amber. It is simply not safe to set off without looking as there will always be 3 to 4 cars crossing on red. Possibly the first one will cross as they change to red, but the next 3 effectively jump the lights.

Another example is that everyone knows (or should know) the danger of tailgating and yet on the M5 yesterday driving along the stretch that says "keep 2 chevrons apart" at 65-70 mph there was a lorry behind me barely keeping 2 feet apart!
Recently I was going to work at about 7.30 in the morning, keeping to the 30mph as I always try to, but a chap in a 4x4 behind wasn't content to wait for the de-restricted sign in 100 yards time and overtook me, going the wrong side of 2 keep left signs to do so! I bought a dash cam after that episode.

The point about low level offending setting a fatal trap is absolutely correct in my view. These sort of drivers get away with this type of behaviour time and again until the day that they decide to argue with a train and there's only ever going to be one result of that.

As for signage, how about a "Danger of death" type sign like they have on electricity sub stations.

Require offending drivers to retake the tougher test that most will fail.

Many years ago the signs at AHB's used to say STOP WHILST LIGHTS FLASH, these all had to be changed because whilst means "until" in Yorkshire.

At that time I got involved with deciding the wording of road signs at level crossings. One of the things to come out of the research was that road users won't read long messages and that providing a sign in English won't help those who don't read English, that's why most traffic signs are graphics. Sign's containing 13 words quite simply will be ignored because drivers will not take the time to read and understand them. A change in flash rate and yodel alarm frequency will have much greater effect than a lengthy sign.

But the safest level crossing is still a closed level crossing and NR are doing a pretty good job of closing as many as they can.

Worth trying to design pictogram signs but not easy to show conditionality - danger only when lights show. I believe AHB and AOC crossings are acceptably safe but we should always be looking to make them safer as far as reasonably practical and affordable.

 

[randyrippley]

how about using the "one way" tyre spikes seen at some controlled car parks? Put them on the crossing exits: anyone trying to drive the wrong way would be stopped (and probably lose their tyres)

 

[bramling]

Hopefully clear signage can only help and NR have covered themselves.



I think at least 10% of drivers should never have a Licence due to failing an attitude test or being found too impulsive, by reducing accidents and selfish driving this would reduce congestion greatly improving traffic flow.



Require offending drivers to retake the tougher test that most will fail.



Worth trying to design pictogram signs but not easy to show conditionality - danger only when lights show. I believe AHB and AOC crossings are acceptably safe but we should always be looking to make them safer as far as reasonably practical and affordable.

Whilst I agree with much of all of this, the next problem with the impulsive group is that, because of their inability to assess consequences, preventing them having a licence won’t necessarily stop them driving. It’s quite easy to get hold of a car and drive around unlicensed and uninsured, and the chances of being picked up are fairly patchy, especially outside of the big cities. I don’t claim to have a solution, but it’s not an easy one to crack - especially with there being a mindset that driving is like a God-given right.

 

[AlexNL]

how about using the "one way" tyre spikes seen at some controlled car parks? Put them on the crossing exits: anyone trying to drive the wrong way would be stopped (and probably lose their tyres)

And increasing the chance of a vehicle getting struck by a train, as they are now stuck on the crossing?

 

[Pete_uk]

If this was a car getting hit by a artic lorry because it had gone through a red line light at junction, would there be much discussion?

 

[AlterEgo]

If this was a car getting hit by a artic lorry because it had gone through a red line light at junction, would there be much discussion?

I was thinking the same thing only a couple of days ago.

 

[al78]

Not just level crossings, in Manchester people are willing to take the substantial risk of wrecking their cars to get past bollards that they shouldn't.

 

[Robertj21a]

If this was a car getting hit by a artic lorry because it had gone through a red line light at junction, would there be much discussion?

Probably not - but there's also a number of differences between the 2 scenarios.

 

[Robsignals]

how about using the "one way" tyre spikes seen at some controlled car parks? Put them on the crossing exits: anyone trying to drive the wrong way would be stopped (and probably lose their tyres)

Can only be used on a one way road due to risk of a wide or long vehicle going the other way getting caught. An ordinary road would need to be made dual carriageway which isn't realistic for country lanes that usually cross AHBs and would be very expensive and unpopular, plus maintenance costs. Wonder how long it would be until the teeth were found jammed/superglued flat!

 

[Robsignals]

Whilst I agree with much of all of this, the next problem with the impulsive group is that, because of their inability to assess consequences, preventing them having a licence won’t necessarily stop them driving. It’s quite easy to get hold of a car and drive around unlicensed and uninsured, and the chances of being picked up are fairly patchy, especially outside of the big cities. I don’t claim to have a solution, but it’s not an easy one to crack - especially with there being a mindset that driving is like a God-given right.

True but it's not a problem the railway can solve, NR must do all it reasonably can. ANPR has been effective in catching illegal drivers/cars, from watching reality TV unlicensed drivers are often reported by neighbours or associates enabling police to wait at a specific place and time to catch them.

 

[BestWestern]

AIUI the purpose of half barriers is to allow vehicles to exit the crossing if, for example, they misjudge the lights, stall on the crossing etc. This could be addressed by leaving a gap between the first and second barrier closing BUT this would extend the whole process further and - potentially - lead to further abuse.

And the first time somebody stalled on a crossing and then couldn't drive off there would, presumably, be calls for half-barriers to be used.

No easy answers.

The answer is surely to design a barrier which operates normally but also hinges or rotates outwards, so that a trapped vehicle is able to drive through it. AHB barriers have a fairly chunky, robust-looking design, as opposed to the hugely delicate-looking installations at full width cctv crossings, so it ought to be possible to devise something appropriate. Simply install them both sides, with a sign reading "IF TRAPPED DRIVE THROUGH BARRIER" or similar on the inside.