Level crossing incident in Lincoln being investigated

Status
Not open for further replies.

fsmr

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2009
Messages
659
While she should not have entered the LC without a clear exit, the operator does seem to have lowered the barriers without checking despite the car being stopped across the path . This will have only led to even more delays. Quite why she didn't just reverse and go round once the other car had moved I dont know. I can see RAIB poss getting involved on this one
where road and rail mix, there is a potential disaster waiting


woman driving a car with her baby inside became stuck under a level crossing barrier.

Footage shows other drivers and pedestrians rushing to get the baby out of the car, then moving her to safety.

The woman then appears to get back into the car to manoeuvre it off the crossing at Brayford Wharf East, Lincoln.

British Transport Police are investigating and appealed for witnesses to get in touch.

There were no reports of any injuries.




The incident happened on Saturday, close to a university in a busy area of the city.

Network Rail said it takes safety very seriously and it is important drivers and pedestrians do not enter crossings after lights start flashing.

A spokesperson added: "Troublingly, the footage also shows members of the public walking onto the crossing long after the light sequence starts as the barriers come down.

"While no doubt frightening for those involved, this incident was not as serious as it could have been, with the signaller able to stop the trains and the driver able to remove the car from the crossing."

The incident comes a matter of weeks after British Transport Police released footage of a lorry overtaking a van at a level crossing at Ulceby.

Video of incident on link


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-35826078
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
23,991
Location
Scotland
While she should not have entered the LC without a clear exit, the operator does seem to have lowered the barriers without checking despite the car being stopped across the path . This will have only led to even more delays.
Brayford is a CCTV monitored crossing, so I believe the sequence starts automatically.

Edit: Hmm... not actually sure now if the sequence is automatic. I thought it was triggered by clearing of the signals for Lincoln Central, but NR's level crossing list has it classified as 'Manned Barriers CCTV Monitored'.
 
Last edited:

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,500
Brayford is a CCTV monitored crossing, so I believe the sequence starts automatically.

Edit: Hmm... not actually sure now if the sequence is automatic. I thought it was triggered by clearing of the signals for Lincoln Central, but NR's level crossing list has it classified as 'Manned Barriers CCTV Monitored'.
The sequence, as at any CCTV crossing, will only start automatically if "auto-lower" is available and selected. I don't know whether it is at Lincoln (I'd guess that it is provided), but I'm sure that the signalmen are well used to having to keep a close eye on the sequence although there's no requirement to. In this case, it looks like they've sensibly allowed the leading barriers to lower (clear of the offending car, and to stop other vehicles or pedestrians being tempted to nip across) and the trailing barriers to start lowering before panic set in.
 

fsmr

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2009
Messages
659
S far as I am aware, lowering the barriers has to be confirmed by a mk1 eyball on full barrier for the reasons that can bee seen Not so on an AHB lc where the train would be there after 25 seconds but these should never be located where standing traffic could end up stuck when the sequence starts. Oakham Brooke rd being a case in point converted to remote worked form AHB some years back after a re evaluation due to the obscured view of the exit being clear and queuing traffic.
In this case there is clearly a view so car driver is to blame coupled with operational irregularity of the LC/ The pegs would have been interlocked so never going to have a collision in this case luckily

Confusingly, the widely seen fatal crash in the Czech republic has automatic full barriers and the consequence of this is clearly seen if a vehicle is slow and crosses as the sequence starts. Had the driver carried on after running the sequence and smashed through the exit barriers it would have been avoided


[youtube]TCO_UCBfBTY[/youtube]
 

trentside

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
14 Aug 2010
Messages
3,330
Location
The back cab
Brayford is currently handling a lot more road traffic than it normally would, as the High Street is closed northbound (and will stay so permanently) due to the works to install a pedestrian footbridge over the crossing. Traffic is regularly queuing the length of Brayford Wharf East and the amount of people who think it's acceptable to enter the crossing without their exit being clear is quite shocking.

No doubt most of you will be wanting the signaller hung, drawn and quartered regardless of operational realities. Personally, I'd much rather this moron in the car be given a hefty fine and hopefully a driving ban for everyone's safety. I suppose that's too much to ask though, isn't it? :roll:
 
Last edited:

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,892
Location
Somewhere
Suggest you do your home work before stating an operational irregularity. Unless special box instructions exist, only before pressing the crossing clear (or equivalent) does the crossing need to be checked and free of obstructions.

It should also be noted when stopping the lowering procedure the barriers do not always stop in and as timely fashion as one would like.

Lastly, you state "The pegs would have been interlocked so never going to have a collision in this case luckily"...There is no luck about it, this is the design and point of the type of barriers in question.

This type of thing is almost a daily occurrence across the network, I'm not sure why the RAIB would be involved.
 
Last edited:

hounddog

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
276
No doubt most of you will be wanting the signaller hung, drawn and quartered regardless of operational realities. Personally, I'd much rather this moron in the car be given a hefty fine and hopefully a driving ban for everyone's safety. I suppose that's too much to ask though, isn't it? :roll:

In my experience most on here will be looking to exonerate the signaller regardless of whatever he actually did.
 

fsmr

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2009
Messages
659
luckily meaning had it been an AHB the outcome would have been different so get off your high horse I am well aware of the interlocks but most of joe public are not


LCs and their operation are under intense scrutiny by the RAIB currently unless you have been sleeping and NWR are being held culpable in many of the tragic accidents over the last few years even where the driver would be thought to blame for not seeing the crossing lights
One of the many reasons NWR want to remove all LCs from the network

and anything that involves a near miss or can add to the safety is looked at
Clearly the car was already stuck on the LC BEFORE the barriers started to be lowered, rightly or wrongly It hadn't jumped the light just gone on to the LC when the exit was blocked which I have already said was wrong but the signalman or crossing operator turned a minor incident into a drama
 
Last edited:

trentside

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
14 Aug 2010
Messages
3,330
Location
The back cab
and anything that involves a near miss or can add to the safety is looked at
Clearly the car was already stuck on the LC BEFORE the barriers started to be lowered, rightly or wrongly It hadn't jumped the light just gone on to the LC when the exit was blocked which I have already said was wrong but the signalman or crossing operator turned a minor incident into a drama

How did they turn it into a drama?
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,892
Location
Somewhere
How can you state as fact that the car didn't jump the lights when the video misses out the initial sequence?

Do you know if auto lower is used at this crossing?
 

fsmr

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2009
Messages
659
Brayford is currently handling a lot more road traffic than it normally would, as the High Street is closed northbound (and will stay so permanently) due to the works to install a pedestrian footbridge over the crossing. Traffic is regularly queuing the length of Brayford Wharf East and the amount of people who think it's acceptable to enter the crossing without their exit being clear is quite shocking.

No doubt most of you will be wanting the signaller hung, drawn and quartered regardless of operational realities. Personally, I'd much rather this moron in the car be given a hefty fine and hopefully a driving ban for everyone's safety. I suppose that's too much to ask though, isn't it? :roll:

No not saying that the signaller or operator needs shooting but there are some learning points as the railway doesn't exactly come out smelling of roses regardless Just caused big delays while the jobs stopped to repair the LC barrier

There is obviously a change to the use of the LC which you have just said, ie handling more traffic and queuing so perhaps there should be more temporary signage provided by the highways now hatchings. even and policing. A few fines for obstructing the LC in local papers will soon get word out
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
How can you state as fact that the car didn't jump the lights when the video misses out the initial sequence?

Do you know if auto lower is used at this crossing?

No she did not jump the light because of eyewitnesses that were there locally or maybe they were all wrong and no I dont know if auto lower was in use but the sequence should not have been started in auto if the LC was not clear or likely to have queuing traffic on it That is the whole point and why NWR have been doing trials with obstruction detection is to scan the LC automatically. Personally I would prefer a mk1 trained eyeball to be in control perhaps with assistance from automation
 

trentside

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
14 Aug 2010
Messages
3,330
Location
The back cab
No not saying that the signaller or operator needs shooting but there are some learning points as the railway doesn't exactly come out smelling of roses regardless Just caused big delays while the jobs stopped to repair the LC barrier

It looks bad to an untrained eye, I'll give you that.

The "big delays" didn't happen, the job ran pretty much as normal once the car was clear, as far as I'm aware.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
17,864
Auto lower at MCB CCTV crossings means exactly that - the barriers are lowered automatically without the intervention of the controlling signaller. The signaller then observe the crossing and only presses crossing clear if the barriers are down and the crossing proved clear.

If someone is in the way of the barriers when they lower - having ignored the warning lights and audible warning, then that I'm afraid is their fault. I've seen it happen several times and seen the car / van drivers arrested on the spot as a result.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,500
No she did not jump the light because of eyewitnesses that were there locally or maybe they were all wrong and no I dont know if auto lower was in use but the sequence should not have been started in auto if the LC was not clear or likely to have queuing traffic on it That is the whole point and why NWR have been doing trials with obstruction detection is to scan the LC automatically. Personally I would prefer a mk1 trained eyeball to be in control perhaps with assistance from automation
The full video on the Lincolnshire Echo website shows that the car was indeed blocking the crossing when the sequence was started. However, if (as you suggest) the sequence couldn't be started with an obstruction on the crossing, you'd hardly ever be able to run a train in this case! Obstacle detection would almost certainly be unsuitable here too, thankfully.
 

fsmr

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2009
Messages
659
It looks bad to an untrained eye, I'll give you that.

The "big delays" didn't happen, the job ran pretty much as normal once the car was clear, as far as I'm aware.

OK glad to hear it looked like the barrier got bent so assumed it would have been inspected by NWR lads first but either way , something to avoid.

We get the inevitable barriers being broken off as Tom will vouch for in Oakham but it is always error on the part of the LGV drivers
Cant think of a case like this where someone trapped and barriers lowered despite queuing on both LCs although the red light cameras probably keep everyone focused
 
Last edited:

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,500
OK glad to here it looked like the barrier got bent so assumed it would have been inspected by NWR lads first but either way , something to avoid.

We get the inevitable barriers being broken off as Tom will vouch for in Oakham but it is always error on the part of the LGV drivers
Cant think of a case like this where someone trapped and barriers lowered despite queuing on both LCs although the red light cameras probably keep everyone focused
At Oakham, just the same (as you know, both crossings are regularly blocked by queuing traffic), I always got the sequence started and tried to get the leading barriers down (to stop any other traffic trying to force its way across, and to try to encourage the vehicle blocking the crossing to get clear - usually, in my experience, others helped them out by doing what they could to make room). That looks exactly like what's happened here, and a calmer response by the motorist would have avoided any sort of drama.
 

fsmr

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2009
Messages
659
Ok the full video is as Tom said on the echo site. She was sat there for good 10 secs B4 the seq started Pretty obvious that the location is totally unsuitable for any unsupervised lowering of the barriers

Whether some like it or not lowering barriers onto stationary members of the public and injuring them is frowned on.(the car window was broken and lady received a cut finger although she probably turned into the end of it ) The offence she committed initially entering a blocked crossing is already covered by the RTA

The following quote is from the ORR guidelines

The closure sequence should be monitored by the operator, particularly if queuing vehicles or heavy usage by pedestrians is likely to increase risk;
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/2158/level_crossings_guidance.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
At Oakham, just the same (as you know, both crossings are regularly blocked by queuing traffic), I always got the sequence started and tried to get the leading barriers down (to stop any other traffic trying to force its way across, and to try to encourage the vehicle blocking the crossing to get clear - usually, in my experience, others helped them out by doing what they could to make room). That looks exactly like what's happened here, and a calmer response by the motorist would have avoided any sort of drama.
And your work is appreciated although not when I am busting to get across for a **** lol
Trouble with as lot of car drivers is they have no clue hoi to drive or what to do in situation like this and yep I can see your point about getting half the LC down but seems to have all gone very Pete Tong
 
Last edited:

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,500
The trailing barrier was stopped clear of the vehicle though, so that it could have been driven clear of the crossing once the traffic ahead moved forward. The leading barrier was already lowered when the motorist panicked and caught the end of it - not much that you can do to account for that sort of poor decision making, really.
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
936
Location
Blackpool south Shore
The trailing barrier was stopped clear of the vehicle though, so that it could have been driven clear of the crossing once the traffic ahead moved forward. The leading barrier was already lowered when the motorist panicked and caught the end of it - not much that you can do to account for that sort of poor decision making, really.

Agreed - A hard right hand down before reversing could have limited the damage.
The crossing operator, because of his limited camera view (parallel with railway) could have had difficulty seeing the motorist turning to the right (unfortunate bad move) to pass the car in front to clear the crossing, resulting the longer barrier contacting the car
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.2...4!1swtdnkGM8ykGHm2O3-_pSFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
5,037
Location
Torbay
I'm surprised there's no yellow hatching there as it looks like road traffic blocking back across the railway is a high risk. Nearby High Street crossing has yellow hatching (I checked both crossings on recent (late 2015) Google Street view imagery). In addition to requiring the 'crossing clear' visual check, the rail signals would have been prevented from clearing by the barrier being obstructed and not being detected fully descended. If the barrier had been damaged seriously it is also possible its continuity strip may have been fractured, which would also prevent signal clearance.

Note also there's no 'luck' about this not being an AHBC. The busy urban characteristics of the road with junctions nearby and the aforementioned blocking back risk make the site totally unsuitable for that type, so even if it had ever been proposed in the past, it would have been rejected very quickly during risk analysis.
 

222001

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2006
Messages
712
Location
Chesterfield
How come the signaller didn't raise the barriers again after observing the stuck car on CCTV? Although the fact the left barrier was wedged it might not have helped anything...
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
5,032
I'm surprised there's no yellow hatching there as it looks like road traffic blocking back across the railway is a high risk. Nearby High Street crossing has yellow hatching (I checked both crossings on recent (late 2015) Google Street view imagery). In addition to requiring the 'crossing clear' visual check, the rail signals would have been prevented from clearing by the barrier being obstructed and not being detected fully descended. If the barrier had been damaged seriously it is also possible its continuity strip may have been fractured, which would also prevent signal clearance.

Note also there's no 'luck' about this not being an AHBC. The busy urban characteristics of the road with junctions nearby and the aforementioned blocking back risk make the site totally unsuitable for that type, so even if it had ever been proposed in the past, it would have been rejected very quickly during risk analysis.

There shouldn't need to be hatching. Anybody who pulls on to a level crossing without the exit being clear is unfit to be in control of a motor vehicle.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
5,037
Location
Torbay
There shouldn't need to be hatching. Anybody who pulls on to a level crossing without the exit being clear is unfit to be in control of a motor vehicle.

I can't disagree, but there'e inconsistency here. Some crossings (e.g. Lincoln High Street) have it, some don't. There's an argument that whilst it's not strictly necessary from a legal or 'common driving sense' perspective, providing hatching at least reinforces the idea from road junctions which are much more commonly encountered by motorists. This is an operational concern more than safety. The motorist in this case was not in any real danger from trains but if the gates had been more severely damaged, say, then significant rail delay might have resulted. Avoiding that alone could be worth a bit of yellow paint (I'm aware the cost of amending legal orders etc to reflect the change could amount to considerably more than the cost of painting the hatching!).
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Having watched the full video, I wonder if a Notice of Intended Prosecution might be winging it's way to the driver of the bus travelling in the opposite direction and the very beginning. No barrier crunching but he very clearly 'goes for it' well after the lights have turned amber, and they're onto flashing red well before he's across. I've seen clips of BTP pulling motorists for the same; such a stunt while at the wheel of a PCV would likely be deeply frowned upon.
 

fsmr

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2009
Messages
659
Rule 291

A level crossing is where a road crosses a railway or tramway line. Approach and cross it with care. Never drive onto a crossing until the road is clear on the other side and do not get too close to the car in front. Never stop or park on, or near, a crossing.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-works-level-crossings-and-tramways-288-to-307

I do remember when AHB were introduced in the 60s they put a yellow box on the crossing BUT not under where the barriers fall
But really shouldn't matter

HOWEVER
If someone stops across a traffic light box, you are still not allowed to drive into them or intimidate them into causing an accident. If the operator deliberately lowered the barriers as opposed to just setting the light sequence off, then there are questions rightly or wrongly

I think that the first thing here is that red light cameras are installed expediently so that once the lights are on, there should be no need to have to start dropping the barriers

here is the links echo video which has the full sequence http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/V...rain-barrier/story-28918951-detail/story.html
 
Last edited:

trentside

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
14 Aug 2010
Messages
3,330
Location
The back cab
Having watched the full video, I wonder if a Notice of Intended Prosecution might be winging it's way to the driver of the bus travelling in the opposite direction and the very beginning. No barrier crunching but he very clearly 'goes for it' well after the lights have turned amber, and they're onto flashing red well before he's across. I've seen clips of BTP pulling motorists for the same; such a stunt while at the wheel of a PCV would likely be deeply frowned upon.

I found a copy of the full video on the Grimsby Telegraph website - you can view it if you scroll down.

Operator is PC Coaches of Lincoln, not a firm who would tolerate such things in my experience.
 

railnerd

Member
Joined
16 Mar 2015
Messages
143
Location
Near where the above once stood
Hi.
Ive read all the posts on this subject thus far. Ive seen the full length video. I agree with some and disagree with some comments on this.
Network Rail or the car driver. In this day and age, I think we all know who will get in trouble for this dont we?
 
Last edited:

WestRiding

Member
Joined
21 Mar 2012
Messages
691
Location
Yorkshire
There is no requirement for the Signalman to watch the lowering sequence. The signalman IS required to check that the crossing is IS clear before allowing any signals to be cleared. The onus is on the road/crossing users once the claxtons and road lights show. Even if all barriers are down with something/one trapped, the signals will not be cleared, and chances are that the barriers are still down because the signalman is doing something else at the other end of his panel, but upon returning will raise the barriers for the idiots that got stuck. Signalmen do not just watch level crossings, and there are often more than one on the panel to deal with at the same time. Having just watched the video, I hope she was arrested and points on licence. Having a baby in the car does not make her exempt. By the way, things like this happen all the time, and it is always the car drivers fault. If she had not broken the law and drove onto a level crossings area without a clear exit.................
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
How come the signaller didn't raise the barriers again after observing the stuck car on CCTV? Although the fact the left barrier was wedged it might not have helped anything...

If it was me, I would have left the barriers too. Both to prevent further damage, and for the police to see that someone has broken the law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fsmr

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2009
Messages
659
There is no requirement for the Signalman to watch the lowering sequence. The signalman IS required to check that the crossing is IS clear before allowing any signals to be cleared. The onus is on the road/crossing users once the claxtons and road lights show. Even if all barriers are down with something/one trapped, the signals will not be cleared, and chances are that the barriers are still down because the signalman is doing something else at the other end of his panel, but upon returning will raise the barriers for the idiots that got stuck. Signalmen do not just watch level crossings, and there are often more than one on the panel to deal with at the same time..

You might want to check that statement with the ORR. After all when it all goes Pete Tong they are the ones that will be chewing your arse off or your line managers

As I posted earlier there is a pretty clear statement from the ORR that the LC closing sequence should be monitored at locations such as this one

You cant do much if someone runs a red after the barriers are lowering but this one looks a pretty stupid attempt to intimidate the trapped car which yes is at fault and will no doubt get some points but I would be surprised if NWR dont get some kind of penalty as well


The closure sequence should be monitored by the operator, particularly if queuing vehicles or heavy usage by pedestrians is likely to increase risk;

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/2158/level_crossings_guidance.pdf
 

tony_mac

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2009
Messages
3,623
Location
Liverpool
Having watched the full video, I wonder if a Notice of Intended Prosecution might be winging it's way to the driver of the bus

Not a chance - he was already moving and part-way across the stop-line before the lights even went amber. Nobody gets an NIP for crossing 0.5 seconds into amber, even if it's technically possible.
Seeing that the road ahead was clear, I think that accelerating was exactly the right, and safest, thing to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top