Level crossing incident in Lincoln being investigated

[maniacmartin]

The mother was unable to move out of the path of the barrier which completely smashed her window injuring her finger.

The video definately proves she drove into it!

 

[Bald Rick]

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 key word in the ORR guidance is 'should'. Not 'must'.

For those of us who have worked in boxes with auto lower MCB-CCTV, it is not practical to always observe the lowering sequence. Read the rest of the ORR guidance, but in short:

When on Autolower, the CCTV only comes on when the sequence starts, and the barriers will start to drop within around 10 seconds depending on the length of the Amber and flashing Red sequence. If during that 10 seconds you are doing something else safety critical, eg signalling a train, on the phone to a driver, completing paperwork for a line blockage, observing the barrier sequence on another crossing*, then it is simply not possible to observe this crossing.

* some panels have up to 3 level crossings, some CCTV workstations have 7. It is quite feasible to have 3 or 4 LX in part of a closing sequence concurrently.

As said previously, this type of incident is very frequent, probably in the order of one a day somewhere on the network. In my experience, very very few are the fault of the signaller.

 

[LowLevel]

Entirely speculating but Brayford Wharf and High Street crossings now both have to be cleared to allow the protecting signal to come off - it's impossible to watch both effectively at once so I do wonder if the auto lower thing comes into play. Before the 2008 resignalling they were monitored separately by East Holmes and High Street boxes respectively and had different protecting signals - there were signals between the crossings on both up and down lines.

 

[GB]

The key word in the ORR guidance is 'should'. Not 'must'.

For those of us who have worked in boxes with auto lower MCB-CCTV, it is not practical to always observe the lowering sequence. Read the rest of the ORR guidance, but in short:

When on Autolower, the CCTV only comes on when the sequence starts, and the barriers will start to drop within around 10 seconds depending on the length of the Amber and flashing Red sequence. If during that 10 seconds you are doing something else safety critical, eg signalling a train, on the phone to a driver, completing paperwork for a line blockage, observing the barrier sequence on another crossing*, then it is simply not possible to observe this crossing.

* some panels have up to 3 level crossings, some CCTV workstations have 7. It is quite feasible to have 3 or 4 LX in part of a closing sequence concurrently.

As said previously, this type of incident is very frequent, probably in the order of one a day somewhere on the network. In my experience, very very few are the fault of the signaller.

Exactly...and is the whole point of auto lower in the first place.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

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. ...............
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
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.

That does not sound right at all.
In the 70's BR changed the operation of our local crossings (including CCTV ones) from just pressing a button to having to keep the button pressed, or the operation stops, and a delay when the button is repressed.
Add pedestrians he needs eyes in the back of his head!

 

[BRblue]

That does not sound right at all.
In the 70's BR changed the operation of our local crossings (including CCTV ones) from just pressing a button to having to keep the button pressed, or the operation stops, and a delay when the button is repressed.
Add pedestrians he needs eyes in the back of his head!

A lot of cctv crossings you still need to keep the button pressed but not on auto lowering crossings.
I am responsible for 4 cctv crossings and yes you do need eyes in the back of your head.

Can everyone bear in mind that the signaller has a totally different view to that on the video and may well of not known that the car had moved into the end of the barrier.
As for lowering the barriers while a vehicle is still on the crossing... I do not see a problem with preventing any further vehicles from entering the crossing.

 

[Llanigraham]

As for lowering the barriers while a vehicle is still on the crossing... I do not see a problem with preventing any further vehicles from entering the crossing.

Quite!!
I didn't have CCTV but actually overlooked a crossing and would often start the the lowering procedure whilst there were vehicles on the crossing.
It made them realise they shouldn't be there!!

 

[railnerd]

Hi.
Im not gonna name names, but i know someone who would press the lower button and then stop it 3 secs later when cars were blocking the crossing.
He or she would do this 30 seconds before the proper time to lower the barriers so as not to delay trains!

 

[BestWestern]

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.

I disagree that he was over the stop line; though close to it admittedly. I'd like to think I'd have stopped, having of course approached anticipating that the lights may 'change'... But then I wasn't driving. And that, clearly, wasn't the most significant issue here.

 

[Llanigraham]

Can beat that, railnerd.

Friend of mine (now retired) dropped the barriers onto to the roof of a Merc that was straddling the stop line on a crossing, having moved AFTER the yoddels had started.
Then he raised the barriers and lowered them again!!

One Merc with a dented roof and NO repercussions against him!

And on Race Day at Ludlow Racecourse I would start the barriers as soon as the annunciator went to ensure that the crossing could be cleared in time. Had many a successful prosecution against those who thought they knew better!!

Re the coach;
He was over the stop line before the yellow came on.

 

[WestRiding]

You must place the auto-lower switch (if provided) in the ‘manual’
position and lower the barriers by using the ‘lower’ button,
watching the whole of the lowering sequence, if:
• at least one pair of the road-traffic signals has failed
• you become aware that there is road-traffic congestion at the
crossing
• a track circuit controlling the auto-lower facility fails.

Taken from Railway Rule Book TS9. So if the Signaller was not aware of traffic congestion he has no obligation to watch the whole of the lowering sequence. Signallers work to the rule book, not ORR statements, which until now i have never seen.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Looking at the location on Google Streetview there's a signalbox nearby does it have anything to do with the level crossing or is it an old closed box?

 

[BestWestern]

Re the coach;
He was over the stop line before the yellow came on.

Not quite...

Pause the video; he'a a couple of feet short when the yellows first light up. It's close, but the lights got there first. What's slightly confusing is that there are two lines on the tarmac. The first one, farthest from the crossing, is faint and untidy, suggesting it's either a tarmac repair strip or an old road marking. The stop line appears to be the second, clearer line closer to the barrier. The bus crosses the first, but the lights are on before he gets over the second.

Anyway, pedantic mode to 'OFF'

 

[najaB]

Looking at the location on Google Streetview there's a signalbox nearby does it have anything to do with the level crossing or is it an old closed box?

It is a closed box.

 

[LAX54]

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]

cugh...splutter....WHAT Operational Irregularity buck stops at the idiot driver end of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

Of course....he has done nothing wrong !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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 ---


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

Now either she entered the crossing when the exit was not clear, or she jumped the red lights, HAD the red lights failed the Signaller would have had a warning in the box, and there is a process for lowering the barriers in these instances.

 

[fsmr]

cugh...splutter....WHAT Operational Irregularity buck stops at the idiot driver end of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Of course....he has done nothing wrong !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Now either she entered the crossing when the exit was not clear, or she jumped the red lights, .

I suggest rather than quoting out of context from my post and spouting conjecture going round in circles you actually open your eyes and read the posts
We have already established the facts and if you bother to watch the full video you will; see that there was no jumping of red lights, just driving onto the LC before the LC exit was empty nearly 10 seconds BEFORE the first amber

That was stupid and illegal under RTA which I already stated in the very first post but what followed was equally stupid by a professional railwayman.

Either as some suggest he was unable to see the full picture in which case the conversion to CCTV control has failed and is dangerous, or his workload is too high, again dangerous

Lowering one side we have established is a routine if not correct way rightly or wrongly of stopping anything else going on rather than keeping the lights only sequence on while the trapped traffic exits but the second set of barriers lowering onto the roof then caused her to panic and drive into the already lowered barrier. Some on here do seem to be creating a very "them and us attitude" to the public be it as road users or passengers leaning against a departing train drunk or getting trapped in doors.
Oh wait someone went to jail for that one didn't they despite the bravado on here saying it was not the guards fault at the time

It might seem funny lowering a barrier on to a car for some, even a challenge but following a number of fatal accidents with barriers in car parks striking cars, there are already a number of HSE court cases going on so dont expect this will just disappear like this one in Lincolnshire http://press.hse.gov.uk/2015/council-fined-after-man-killed-by-swing-barrier/


And an identical incident happened on this LC in September caught on CCTV

Once again sequence starts AFTER the van has gone onto the LC and tries to avoid the barrier ending up impaled so no excuse for NWR it isn't known to have slow queuing traffic. http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/V...rayford-rail/story-27808426-detail/story.html

 

[BestWestern]

Lowering one side we have established is a routine if not correct way rightly or wrongly of stopping anything else going on rather than keeping the lights only sequence on while the trapped traffic exits but the second set of barriers lowering onto the roof then caused her to panic and drive into the already lowered barrier

It might seem funny lowering a barrier on to a car for some, even a challenge but following a number of fatal accidents with barriers in car parks striking cars, there are already a number of HSE court cases going on so dont expect this will just disappear...

Your version of events differs drastically from what is shown in the footage.

The driver steers to the right and impacts the first barrier, alongside her vehicle, while it is still lowering. She moves a long, long time before the barrier above her even begins to drop. During the flashing red lights sequence she can be see edging towards the car in front, suggesting that she had heard the sirens and the 'panic' had already set in. She collided with the lowering barrier, not the other way around.

To suggest that the second barrier struck her car and caused her to panic is completely false. Watch the video again...

 

[LowLevel]

That was stupid and illegal under RTA which I already stated in the very first post but what followed was equally stupid by a professional railwayman.

Now who is spouting conjecture. Apart from your own (unqualified) assessment of the situation I don't believe you have any grounds to make that statement. Given you appear to have no knowledge of how the local signalling system works and aren't in possession of anything other than a trashy newspaper article it seems to me that you should wind your neck in and avoid making statements of fact.

As for them and us, absolutely. I have an absolute grudge against people who act in stupid ways that require me to have near psychic powers to anticipate their behaviour and avoid a prison sentence for me. I actually rather like most of my passengers most of the time though!

 

[GB]

Some on here do seem to be creating a very "them and us attitude" to the public be it as road users or passengers leaning against a departing train drunk or getting trapped in doors.
[/url]

The only one in this thread doing that as far as I can see is you.

You have had people experienced in operating these types of barriers explain the ins and outs, the fact the auto lower may or may not be prevalent, that the stop feature is not always instantaneous, that there is no requirement to watch the lowering procedure unless specifically told otherwise, yet you chose to pretty much ignore them.

You mentioned obstacle detection in another post as a cure yet these also (as far as I am aware) lower automatically without supervision and only "scan" once barriers are down.

The HSE article you posted is irrelevant. The only similarities are car vs barrier. The circumstance around it are entirely different.

 

[najaB]

You mentioned obstacle detection in another post as a cure yet these also (as far as I am aware) lower automatically without supervision and only "scan" once barriers are down.

According to the ORR Level Crossing Guide, the left-hand barrier is indeed automatic (2.60). Once down the crossing is proved clear before the right-hand barrier comes down. So the result would have been basically the same - the car would have been impaled on the far side barrier, the only difference is that the right-hand barrier probably wouldn't have lowered.

 

[GB]

OK thanks.

 

[185]

In terms of traffic law, it would be helpful if yellow boxes could be painted across all LCs. Some do, in my opinion it should be all of them, with a repaint every six months. Brayford Wharf has nothing but a white line and lights/barriers.

 

[najaB]

In terms of traffic law, it would be helpful if yellow boxes could be painted across all LCs.

If someone is going to be as careless with their life as to drive onto a level crossing while the exit is blocked, a bit of yellow paint isn't going to make much difference.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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:

once again someone conveniently forgetting that the high street and brayford wharf traffic will have nowhere to go and no need to go that way once the east -weat link road is open and st mary's street becomes bus only as part of the transport interchange...

 

[trentside]

once again someone conveniently forgetting that the high street and brayford wharf traffic will have nowhere to go and no need to go that way once the east -weat link road is open and st mary's street becomes bus only as part of the transport interchange...

I don't quite follow, sorry? I'm not conveniently forgetting anything - just reporting how the situation is currently. I'm well aware of the East-West Link Road scheme and the Transport Hub project.

 

[philthetube]

Not quite...

Pause the video; he'a a couple of feet short when the yellows first light up. It's close, but the lights got there first. What's slightly confusing is that there are two lines on the tarmac. The first one, farthest from the crossing, is faint and untidy, suggesting it's either a tarmac repair strip or an old road marking. The stop line appears to be the second, clearer line closer to the barrier. The bus crosses the first, but the lights are on before he gets over the second.

Anyway, pedantic mode to 'OFF'

If the bus driver hits the brakes to stop in 2 feet, all his passengers end up on the floor, but at least the railway is safe, that is why there is an amber light

 

[BestWestern]

If the bus driver hits the brakes to stop in 2 feet, all his passengers end up on the floor, but at least the railway is safe, that is why there is an amber light

It's a tough one; the bus was travelling at very slow speed and so it was a toss-up between stopping, safely well before the crossing but a couple of feet over the line, or rumbling onwards and being on the crossing when the reds flash; as indeed he did.

 

[WL113]

Poor woman. I've had concerns over auto-lower for some time. Yes she was in the wrong but probably didn't expect the barrier to come down while her vehicle was still on the crossing.

 

[LAX54]

I suggest rather than quoting out of context from my post and spouting conjecture going round in circles you actually open your eyes and read the posts
We have already established the facts and if you bother to watch the full video you will; see that there was no jumping of red lights, just driving onto the LC before the LC exit was empty nearly 10 seconds BEFORE the first amber

That was stupid and illegal under RTA which I already stated in the very first post but what followed was equally stupid by a professional railwayman.

Either as some suggest he was unable to see the full picture in which case the conversion to CCTV control has failed and is dangerous, or his workload is too high, again dangerous

Lowering one side we have established is a routine if not correct way rightly or wrongly of stopping anything else going on rather than keeping the lights only sequence on while the trapped traffic exits but the second set of barriers lowering onto the roof then caused her to panic and drive into the already lowered barrier. Some on here do seem to be creating a very "them and us attitude" to the public be it as road users or passengers leaning against a departing train drunk or getting trapped in doors.
Oh wait someone went to jail for that one didn't they despite the bravado on here saying it was not the guards fault at the time

It might seem funny lowering a barrier on to a car for some, even a challenge but following a number of fatal accidents with barriers in car parks striking cars, there are already a number of HSE court cases going on so dont expect this will just disappear like this one in Lincolnshire http://press.hse.gov.uk/2015/council-fined-after-man-killed-by-swing-barrier/


And an identical incident happened on this LC in September caught on CCTV

Once again sequence starts AFTER the van has gone onto the LC and tries to avoid the barrier ending up impaled so no excuse for NWR it isn't known to have slow queuing traffic. http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/V...rayford-rail/story-27808426-detail/story.html

Regardless of whether 'swills' or whoever was exactly correct, she was in the wrong, the rules are clear, you do not enter the crossing if the exit is not clear. There is NO (railway) Operating error, however there is a Car Driver irregularity ! I am not sure why you think it was a stupid professional railwayman ! There is no requirement to watch the lowering seqence, the rules are based on car drivers actually knowing how to drive !
The facing booms come down first, once they are detected 'down' the trailing booms lower, giving ample time for those that seemingly cant see or hear yodles and red lights to escape ! She was lucky it was a CCTV crossing, had she done the same thing at AHB, she would be dead. anyway lets hope she gets done, and that Network Rail also get all (if any) delay payments made back from her too. The STOP button was pressed, hence the trailing boom stopping just before it hits the roof. The car then escapes, and the lower button is then pressed again to finish the sequence.

 

[455driver]

Regardless of whether 'swills' or whoever was exactly correct, she was in the wrong, the rules are clear, you do not enter the crossing if the exit is not clear. There is NO (railway) Operating error, however there is a Car Driver irregularity ! I am not sure why you think it was a stupid professional railwayman ! There is no requirement to watch the lowering seqence, the rules are based on car drivers actually knowing how to drive !
The facing booms come down first, once they are detected 'down' the trailing booms lower, giving ample time for those that seemingly cant see or hear yodles and red lights to escape ! She was lucky it was a CCTV crossing, had she done the same thing at AHB, she would be dead. anyway lets hope she gets done, and that Network Rail also get all (if any) delay payments made back from her too. The STOP button was pressed, hence the trailing boom stopping just before it hits the roof. The car then escapes, and the lower button is then pressed again to finish the sequence.

Save your breath/fingers, the person you quoted flatly refuses/is unable to understand autolowering of barriers, maybe he thinks the siggy has to turn a big wheel to lower them!