Level crossing Phone to cross but can't speak!

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, but going down the road of solving the ‘problem’ of the mute wheelchair user who can’t use a fixed crossing phone by spending tax payer’s money developing a mobile app that flashes a coded laser beam towards the moon, where a team of Network Rail signaller-astronauts solve a series of simultaneous equations to decide whether or not it’s safe for somone to cross is not necessarily a reasonable approach.

No, but providing a text based solution that can be used at all "phone to cross" crossings probably is.

Though at the offending station a footbridge with lifts or ramps is the real fix.

 

[AnyFile]

I think that the most important thing is what to read what the National Rail will answer (if they will).

Was the signal on a public crossing or on a crossing for staff only?

If the OP cant communicate safety with the signaller then dont cross the railway.

Which will rise the question if it is legal that such a crossing exists or if the railway is required to install a "proper" crossing for everybody

In the third world there is generally unfettered access to the railway, with predictable consequences.

or in many case not a railway present for many many miles.

 

[Davester50]

Yes, because disability is a protected characteristic in law and the railway is required to make a reasonable adjustment, if it can.

It's difficult to know exactly what would work for the OP though (they are best placed to suggest!), and any solution may be entirely local, especially if they are a regular crossing user.

So what happens at Welsh Level Crossings if one user doesn't speak the others tongue?

 

[AnyFile]

Are signallers required to speak Welsh in Wales?

 

[endofthetunnel]

To be fair, NR are in general trying to close level crossings rather than make them more accessible.
They are infinitely aware of all the problems, not just with non speaking or different languages, but also the need to read signage, to open/close gates yourself, etc, and of course of general trespass.
The safest and preferred option is closure.
As has already been said this particular type of crossing is very rare on the network, because of how poor the method of work is.

 

[Deafdoggie]

So what happens at Welsh Level Crossings if one user doesn't speak the others tongue?

Are there (m)any people who speak Welsh but not English? Certainly I'd be surprised to find a signaller who didn't speak English working in a box that users had to call on a telephone to get permission.

 

[Davester50]

Are there (m)any people who speak Welsh but not English?

It's just as relevant as the OPs circumstance.

 

[zwk500]

Are there (m)any people who speak Welsh but not English? Certainly I'd be surprised to find a signaller who didn't speak English working in a box that users had to call on a telephone to get permission.

All the signallers will need to speak English, I'm pretty sure. But in West Wales I understand you do get farmers and similarly rural people who don't speak English, who might need to cross an occupation crossing on, say, the Cambrian.

 

[lachlan]

It's just as relevant as the OPs circumstance.

That's not an answer to the question. These crossings should be crossable safely without being able to speak English or Welsh.

 

[Davester50]

That's not an answer to the question. These crossings should be crossable safely without being able to speak English or Welsh.

You've missed the point.
The ability to cross is only by English. If prevents the OP to cross, it will also prevent those who do not read and/or speak English.
I questioned

Is it much different from non-English speakers though?

In practical terms, it's not.
While AlterEgo referred to the protected characteristics needing reasonable adjustment, I'd suggest the provision of an alternative in the form of the bridge reasonable.

Rural crossings with issues caused by agricultural workers language skills seems to me to be a bigger problem than this rare situation, which, has been said, is slowly being rectified.

 

[Llanigraham]

The elaborate hi tech text messaging, CCTV systems etc.. devised here are really solutions in search of a problem.

Exactly this!
How do people expect the signaller to receive a text message? Mobile phones are banned in Boxes and there can be a hige delay and inaccuracies in the transferring of text messages to BT lines.

Are signallers required to speak Welsh in Wales?

No they aren't since the legally accepted language on the railway in Wales is English.

All the signallers will need to speak English, I'm pretty sure. But in West Wales I understand you do get farmers and similarly rural people who don't speak English, who might need to cross an occupation crossing on, say, the Cambrian.

I can assure you that all railway communications between the public and the Machynlleth Signalling Centre has to be done in English.
And according to the last census there is no-one in Wales now who is monoglot

 

[hpknow]

Interesting this stuff and when one considers just how much the railways rely on speech for communication, those WITHOUT speech are often vilified. We're often not treated well in fact, as I can attest even by some on this forum who have practised negatives and incredulous attitudes because they simply do not understand. Of course they can't understand!

For me the railways isnt a level playing field and often when I find problems I also find rail staff going up to other staff and then conferring and 'complaining' about me, putting me down, simply because they have speech and I dont and they think it is absolutely okay. They're setting a playing field that is massively unequal and its pervasive right across the railways, and its discriminatory, ever so problematic.

I don't have interpreters that tag along with me, and I have notes that explain my situation but often staff don't want to look they continue to speak (even though face masks) and become even more indignant when I dont reply (well I am trying to mouth to them some communication but they get offended because I am not vocalising or anything as they would like) and threaten to call the police.

Really its a comprehensive package of discriminations (a supremacy if one could describe it) and whether there's visual information, notice boards, opportunities to have an interpreter to help (as in the recent initiative by some stations to use the
SignLive service) the problem is when one is already at a level far below that of others, its very difficult to even begin a level playing field of any sort - as many of my videos show (I wear a bodycam exactly for that reason - to show the prevalent attitudes that exist on the railways.)

I certainly do not think people should be requested to call signalboxes for any reason (or use help points either) or speak to someone of any sort when the other means of communicating are not really widely accepted (because people almost always expect spoken communication anyway) and until i think this issue does get some reasonable airing and the railways begin to realise there is a problem, things are not going to get very far.

People often cite about those using other languages but I find that anyone with a semblance of a voice, is at least more respected than those WITHOUT any semblance of a voice.

If it was me I'd just have used the crossing having first looked up and down the tracks (and as far up and down those tracks as I could see) and made absolutely sure no trains aware about and not be too worried about some overbearing authority that has no idea of its actions when it comes to communication. I meant the fact is I treat the railway staff with far more respect than they do me (but no-one will understand this either because I'm not imbibed to pass judgements or inherit any sort of backwards assumptions etc, but they're the ones that do that however) and if they cant understand my needs, well that's their problem not mine.

I know some will throw caveats at me about that but I simply dont want to argue that because as it turns out people simply cannot understand the abject discriminations that some of us have to go through on a daily basis.

Thank you.

 

[Wolfie]

If the OP cant communicate safety with the signaller then dont cross the railway.

How very Victorian. Ever heard of the Equality Act?

 

[Davester50]

How very Victorian. Ever heard of the Equality Act?

In this case, there's a reasonable alternative crossing point. Why would you cross dangerously?

 

[lachlan]

In this case, there's a reasonable alternative crossing point. Why would you cross dangerously?

Indeed as the OP has stated, it sounds like they were looking at a staff-only crossing and there was a crossing nearby.

That doesn't take away from the fact the railways have a long way to go accesibility-wise and some of the attitudes displayed in this thread stink.

 

[Annetts key]

I think the arrangements at the actual crossing in question have been answered.

On the general question though, he’s what I have to say...

Phones intended for pedestrian users at level crossings are quite unusual but not entirely unheard of. Generally if there is limited sighting for pedestrians the mitigations used are whistleboards and/or miniature red/green lights. Phones are really intended for vehicular users or those crossing with animals onnthe hoof (e.g. sheep, cows, horses etc)

The NR helpline is contracted out to an external call centre company so they can’t deal with stuff in real time, they just take the details, prioritise it and pass it on but that can easily take anything from an hour upwards to get to the right people.

There are basically three categories of level crossings.

The first is a level crossing provided for a public road or similar. Because these are regularly used, they get the most attention and the most money spent on them. Hence normally you get the amber and flashing red road lights (wig-wags) type ‘traffic lights’. Most also have barriers.

The second is where there is a right of way, but the land on at least one side of the railway is privately owned. These are accommodation crossings. They may include footpaths that the public can use. If the crossing is a pedestrian only type and the sighting distance is good enough for the line speed of the trains, then all there will be is a sign. No telephone or other communication or other equipment will be provided. If there is insufficient sighting distance, then normally a direct line telephone (to the controlling signal box) on both sides of the line will be provided. If telephones are provided, in most cases no other form of communication or other equipment will be provided.

If the accommodation crossing is for use with vehicles or animals (sheep, cattle etc.) then it is more likely to be provided with telephones as described above. Crossing users must follow the instructions on the signs. But with most of these crossings, if the sighting is good enough, a pedestrian (who has no physical disability) is not required to telephone for permission to cross. However any user who will take a vehicle, animals across, or where a longer time than normal will be required to cross, they are required to contact the controlling signal box (normally by the direct line telephones provided). The signallers instructions should be obeyed. Please note that not all these crossings have telephones. If the sighting is not good enough for pedestrians, then you should not cross until the signaller has given permission.

If the accommodation crossing is a busy one, the sighting of approaching trains is poor, or there is a history of crossing misuse, then level crossing red/green lights may be installed. Telephones are often still provided so that users with slow moving vehicles or animals can get permission from the signaller.

The third category is crossings provided for railway staff and sometimes for passengers.

As well as the above arrangements, there are other variations such as electricity operated gate locks.

A crossing near me is on a public bridleway, it is also a farm crossing. There's a telephone, and from memory an instruction to use the phone if crossing with animals - i.e. if you're moving a herd of sheep. That doesn't apply to people crossing on their own, and presumably crossing with a dog (and there are other crossings nearby which don't have a phone), I'm not sure if horse riders have to use the phone or not to cross, and if they do what happens if they can't use the phone.

A dog on a lead (or a well behaved dog not on a lead) is not considered to be a farm animal. It’s all about how long it takes for the person, people, vehicle(s) or animals to cross over the line(s) and how much sighting distance the user gets of any approaching train.

Would the ability to communicate with Network Rail by some sort of text message on your own device be a reasonable solution? OK, it's a bit weaker safety-wise because they know where the crossing phone is but they would be relying on someone relaying where they are accurately, but that could be resolved by giving crossings "names" that are tested to ensure e.g. predictive text doesn't corrupt them to the point of being potentially confused with another one? Or using crossing numbers that contain a strong checksum so if mistyped it can't lead to them thinking it's another one?

There should be an alternative number provided at all public crossing phones.

Each crossing in a signal box area should have a unique name and a OS Grid Reference number. I don’t know if it is now a requirement for a telephone number to be provided. But normally an alternative telephone number is provided so that if the direct line telephone does not work, a user can report this.

Once again I’ll make the point that public level crossings where pedestrian users are required to phone the signaller to seek permission to walk across are very rare. The telephones at user worked level crossings are typically only intended for those users crossing with vehicles or animals on the hoof. There is nothing to prevent a pedestrian phoning the signaller before crossing but equally there is no need for them to do so in order to use the crossing safely.

The vast majority of crossings which cater for pedestrian users will either be entirely passive (i.e. no additional warning mitigations for them at all) or will have some combination of whistle boards and/or miniature Red/Green lights to warn the user of an approaching train. All user worked, bridleway or footpath level crossings have signage telling the user how they are supposed to use it - even just a basic ’Stop Look Listen’ sign at a passive footpath crossing is an instruction on safe use.

The elaborate hi tech text messaging, CCTV systems etc.. devised here are really solutions in search of a problem.

CCTV systems are only used for level crossings where there are full width barriers across the road. As they require both more infrastructure and there is a limit on how many CCTV crossings a signaller can supervise in addition to their other duties.

Note that a lot of railway line side telephones (including level crossing telephones and operational ‘phones such as SPTs) include as standard, induction loop technology that works with hearing aids.

If a regular user who has a disability will be using a crossing regularly, it is worthwhile contacting Network Rail. They are well aware of the law regarding disability. It is possible that an suitable alternative could be found.

 

[LowLevel]

Indeed as the OP has stated, it sounds like they were looking at a staff-only crossing and there was a crossing nearby.

That doesn't take away from the fact the railways have a long way to go accesibility-wise and some of the attitudes displayed in this thread stink.

It isn't a staff only crossing. Melton Mowbray and Stamford have Barrow crossings, the fitting of mag lock gates released by the signaller was a mitigation to allow the crossings to be used when outside the opening hours of the station booking offices, which are generally Monday to Saturday morning only.

The reason they need a mitigation is both stations have fairly poor sight lines and are on reasonably high line speed railways, complicated by being on absolute block operated railway lines where the signaller isn't always totally sure of where precisely the train is between signalboxes.

The alternative mitigation as enacted at Alfreton was to close the crossing entirely and declare it to be a station without step free access, as it was considered an 80 mph railway line on a curve with poor sighting was an unacceptable risk.

At Spalding, the station was resignalled to be bidirectional with trains in each direction using one platform much of the time, but light traffic levels allowed this, and there was a local arrangement to manage to remaining services needing to use platform 2.

At Sleaford, maglock gates were fitted as per Melton and Stamford.

I believe this programme of reassessing Barrow crossings came about following the sad fatalities at Elsenham station in about 2005.

I've only come across one case so far whereby the crossing arrangements in practice did prevent use and that was a non verbal wheelchair user in a powered chair at Sleaford. I'm not sure what arrangement was arrived at in this case as he was telling me about it using his text to voice computer and unfortunately we ran out of time before he had to get off elsewhere.

For workload reasons any arrangement requiring the signaller to read and type out text messages in real time is unlikely to succeed, and neither would transmitting safety critical messages via SMS be acceptable.

The true answer is to provide a lift and bridge but cost does get taken into account, unfortunately.

 

[miami]

Why not a red/green light for people crossing, for example this one (which is for vehicles too)

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

 

[alxndr]

Why not a red/green light for people crossing, for example this one (which is for vehicles too)

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

That's an option. If there were infinite amounts of money available then perhaps we would see more of them, especially now that overlay crossings* are available and can be installed without too much hassle.

Although note that even at that crossing drivers of large or slow vehicles are instructed to phone.

On a different note, it has occurred to me that walking guides/council footpath databases often contain information on stiles and terrain to enable people who may struggle with those aspects to make an informed decision about whether to walk a particular path. Is there any railway equivalent? It doesn't solve the problem, but at least those it affects are forewarned and can decide in advance if it is best avoided or not.

*overlay crossings are those which have the ability to detect trains but are not connected to the wider signalling system.

 

[lachlan]

It isn't a staff only crossing. Melton Mowbray and Stamford have Barrow crossings, the fitting of mag lock gates released by the signaller was a mitigation to allow the crossings to be used when outside the opening hours of the station booking offices, which are generally Monday to Saturday morning only.

The reason they need a mitigation is both stations have fairly poor sight lines and are on reasonably high line speed railways, complicated by being on absolute block operated railway lines where the signaller isn't always totally sure of where precisely the train is between signalboxes.

The alternative mitigation as enacted at Alfreton was to close the crossing entirely and declare it to be a station without step free access, as it was considered an 80 mph railway line on a curve with poor sighting was an unacceptable risk.

At Spalding, the station was resignalled to be bidirectional with trains in each direction using one platform much of the time, but light traffic levels allowed this, and there was a local arrangement to manage to remaining services needing to use platform 2.

At Sleaford, maglock gates were fitted as per Melton and Stamford.

I believe this programme of reassessing Barrow crossings came about following the sad fatalities at Elsenham station in about 2005.

I've only come across one case so far whereby the crossing arrangements in practice did prevent use and that was a non verbal wheelchair user in a powered chair at Sleaford. I'm not sure what arrangement was arrived at in this case as he was telling me about it using his text to voice computer and unfortunately we ran out of time before he had to get off elsewhere.

For workload reasons any arrangement requiring the signaller to read and type out text messages in real time is unlikely to succeed, and neither would transmitting safety critical messages via SMS be acceptable.

The true answer is to provide a lift and bridge but cost does get taken into account, unfortunately.

Thank you for the detailed answer. Hopefully one day we'll see proper accesible bridges installed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I do find it somewhat interesting that as the OP describes themself as "mostly non-verbal", several honourable members have assumed that they were not (or indeed could not be) using a motor vehicle. The OP has been able to communicate adequately to ask this question in the forum, so it's not a great leap to suggest that they would also be capable of safely using a motor vehicle and understanding the rules and responsibilities that go along with that.

Whilst that may not be relevant to the OPs query (the description of the crossing appears to be pedestrian only) it does raise the wider question of accessibility at crossings. There are many conditions that affect communication, which make user-worked crossings and the like a significant barrier to those individuals.

 

[mmh]

I do find it somewhat interesting that as the OP describes themself as "mostly non-verbal", several honourable members have assumed that they were not (or indeed could not be) using a motor vehicle. The OP has been able to communicate adequately to ask this question in the forum, so it's not a great leap to suggest that they would also be capable of safely using a motor vehicle and understanding the rules and responsibilities that go along with that.

I assumed he was a train passenger, given he said he saw the crossing from a train. It was later explained that the crossing was a barrow crossing at a station, so I think it's reasonable to assume he won't be driving across it.

 

[30907]

I assumed he was a train passenger, given he said he saw the crossing from a train. It was later explained that the crossing was a barrow crossing at a station, so I think it's reasonable to assume he won't be driving across it.

But they might be trying to cross in a powered or self propelled wheelchair, as at Sleaford

 

[Tomnick]

But they might be trying to cross in a powered or self propelled wheelchair, as at Sleaford

...which, if it has small wheels which might get stuck, requires signal protection to be provided and a call back to confirm that the line’s clear, which is a further obstacle to removing verbal communication (and a problem for wheelchair users who turn up at Stamford quite close to their train’s departure time, as it’s in the middle of a fairly long block section so you’ll struggle with signal protection with less than ten minutes to departure, and an unfortunately timed train on the opposite line can scupper it altogether.

I have every sympathy with the OP, and with the non-verbal wheelchair user at Sleaford, but I’m really not sure what the answer is without going far beyond the definition of “reasonable adjustments”. The crossings at Stamford and Melton both represent a significant improvement on what was there before, where anyone unable to use the footbridge would be unable to cross at all in the absence of station staff.

 

[Annetts key]

The systems the railways have developed over time make assumptions that may have been deemed reasonable in the past. But unfortunately changing things to improve matters may not be very easy due to various hidden technical reasons. Hidden as in the actual way the railway operates out of view of the public.

Ultimately, most of the current and past signalling systems are only designed to prevent trains from colliding from one another and to prevent derailments over points (I’m trying to avoid getting technical here so am not listing all the other stuff). There is often only limited provision for providing protection for level crossings users or indeed the railways own staff.

In an idea world, level crossings would be replaced with bridges over the railway or underpasses under it. But this requires lots of money. The next best, is to have a full level crossing with wig-wag road traffic lights and lifting barriers controlled and monitored (via CCTV) from the signal box. These are expensive both to provide and to maintain.

The ORR has been concerned about level crossings and the accidents and near misses that occur at them for some time now.

The railways are moving on the issue of improving level crossings. But without external funding, progress will be slow.

The options the railways normally consider include:

• Closing the crossing. Especially if the land owner no longer requires the crossing.
• Moving the crossing (for example if another location can provide better sighting of approaching trains).
• Providing telephones at crossings where there are none.
• Providing a red/green ‘traffic’ light crossing.
• Replacing with a full full level crossing with wig-wag road traffic lights and lifting barriers controlled and monitored (via CCTV).
• Replacing the crossing with an alternative route or building a bridge.

I’ve seen the railway do the first four things listed above.

Unfortunately the problem of money and practicality will limit what can be done when it comes to infrequently used crossings. And although it’s not right, providing specific provision for disabled people is also not high on the list.

 

[miklcct]

I still can't imagine in the era of 80 mph electrical trains there are still level crossings in use. The last time I saw public level crossings on a heavy railway before coming to the UK was in some countries where trains are still hauled using diesel locomotive!!!!!!!!!

When even a British colony knew to convert all its level crossing into grade-separated crossing while electrifying its national railway in the 1980s, how come the UK can't learn from it?

 

[6Gman]

I still can't imagine in the era of 80 mph electrical trains there are still level crossings in use. The last time I saw public level crossings on a heavy railway before coming to the UK was in some countries where trains are still hauled using diesel locomotive!!!!!!!!!

When even a British colony knew to convert all its level crossing into grade-separated crossing while electrifying its national railway in the 1980s, how come the UK can't learn from it?

1. Cost.
2. Physical limitations.
3. Public opinion.

It would cost a fortune, in many places it would require substantial demolition, sometimes of Listed buildings, and it would be strongly opposed in many locations. I live a few miles from the market town of Nantwich which has four vehicular crossings and one foot crossing. The vehicular crossings would each require significant demolition. Interestingly a proposal to replace the foot crossing with a footbridge was bitterly fought by local residents!

And would you care to identify "a British colony"?

 

[praase]

I still can't imagine in the era of 80 mph electrical trains there are still level crossings in use. The last time I saw public level crossings on a heavy railway before coming to the UK was in some countries where trains are still hauled using diesel locomotive!!!!!!!!!

When even a British colony knew to convert all its level crossing into grade-separated crossing while electrifying its national railway in the 1980s, how come the UK can't learn from it?

You will find that there is near 10,000 miles of track managed by Network Rail, much of it in rural
locations where it divides up agricultural properties. User-worked crossings are often the only way to access such property and used once in a blue moon by one person. It is not in the public interest to spend automating these.

I am assuming based on your posting history that you refer to Hong Kong which I read has some 150 miles of mainline rail, unless you can correct me?

 

[miklcct]

I am assuming based on your posting history that you refer to Hong Kong which I read has some 150 miles of mainline rail, unless you can correct me?

Yes - and the mainline rail concerned is 21 miles in length (between Hung Hom and Lo Wu), the only line built to British standard. All the other lines are built in the modern period, mostly as underground lines.

I'm comparing the UK and the other parts of the Commonwealth because, in many aspects, elsewhere in the Commonwealth is more technically advanced than the UK!

The railway company had to spend a lot in advertisement telling people NOT to cross railways in that period because, in the diesel era, walking on the railway was part of everyday life in the rural area! And some ad looked like ghost stories!

It's definitely in public interest to eliminate level crossings even in rural areas because, if the railway is obstructed, millions of people will be cut off from their jobs and societies!

 

[edwin_m]

Hong Kong is an exception, being highly urbanised with intensive train service so probably few level crossings to get rid of, and those would have been towards the top end of the scale of risk. There are many developed countries where unprotected crossings are relatively common, so it's not limited to the UK (and our rail safety record is better than most). See for example:

SELCAT-D9-Campaign-Final_1 (europa.eu)

The equipment of level crossings aimed at warning and protecting road vehicle drivers can be categorized as follows: • St Andrews Cross, (without any technical equipment) or • Visual warnings given by traffic lights or • Protection given by full or half barriers

This report was focused on road vehicle users but does give an idea of the state of play.