Level crossing problem on a heritage railway.

[unslet]

I am not in a position to discipline the person,however you are right,it needs reporting again.This I will do.

 

[unslet]

Since I last posted on this thread the situation has improved,not perfect,but certainly improved.I believe BTP have had a word.
One person who never used to close the gates now does so,but with very bad grace. You can hear the clang miles away!

On the other side of the coin,the railway has responsibilities too. Sight lines must be maintained for motorists,signage must be present and in good condition and of course the gates have to be in good working order.

We are getting there,slowly,but surely.

 

[2HAP]

UPDATE:

Situation hasn't improved at the HR in question. Have been in contact with Office of Rail and Road, who advise that BTP do have juristiction over Heritage railways. Am in correspondence with both Kent and Sussex Constabularies, and expect that BTP may also get involved.

 

[fireftrm]

UPDATE:

Situation hasn't improved at the HR in question. Have been in contact with Office of Rail and Road, who advise that BTP do have juristiction over Heritage railways. Am in correspondence with both Kent and Sussex Constabularies, and expect that BTP may also get involved.

BTP may have jurisdiction but not duty, do you pay for them? If not then there’s no duty to police your railway

 

[2392]

Yes the NYMR make a contribution to the BTP as an open access TOC. Any other heritage line will no doubtdo the same if/when they create their own TOC as well, i.e. the likes of Swanage and the North Norfolk too....

 

[Egg Centric]

the BTP do police at least one heritage railway......

The Bakerloo Line?

 

[paul1609]

BTP may have jurisdiction but not duty, do you pay for them? If not then there’s no duty to police your railway

I think the BTP have jurisdiction everywhere and they also have resource sharing agreements with the county forces but normally stick to their core business. In 2007 the tour de France started in London and crossed the Kent & East Sussex Railways level crossing at Cranbrook Rd. We had a BTP Liason officer who was dealing with all railway crossings both network rail and us.
They've also deal with a theft incident for us, when some of our rail was identified by Network Rail as amongst a load of stuff recovered from a scrap yard.

 

[cakefiend]

We have this problem at a railway at where I volunteer. It is a select few people who refuse to co-operate no matter how many times they are asked and,yes,they do often drive 4x4s. Unfortunately,our argument is not helped by a member of the railway staff who uses the crossing regularly. He always closes the nearer gate after him,but leaves the other one open. This kills our argument stone dead.

Said railway needs to lead by example and cut ties with the staff member who thinks that's acceptible.

 

[Taunton]

BTP may have jurisdiction but not duty, do you pay for them? If not then there’s no duty to police your railway

The police services do have a general duty to society, which they are very good at maintaining. Contacts through your area NR level crossings manager, who you should be good mates with, is a start. As that manager would probably tell you, it's not whether they have enforcement rights, just a visit from a couple of nevertheless pleasant bobbies in full uniform, with their helmets on the table, a badged police car outside the house, and writing things in their notebook sends a very different message to the manager in a suit just popping round.

 

[fireftrm]

The police services do have a general duty to society, which they are very good at maintaining. Contacts through your area NR level crossings manager, who you should be good mates with, is a start. As that manager would probably tell you, it's not whether they have enforcement rights, just a visit from a couple of bobbies in full uniform, with their helmets on the table, a badged police car outside the house, and writing things in their notebook sends a very different message to the manager in a suit just popping round.

I was referring solely to the BTP..... They do not have jurisdiction across all railways but rather are employed to provide a policing service
From the BTP Authority...

Police Service Agreements​

The Authority enters into agreements with train and freight operating companies in order to provide a policing service to their railway or railway property. These agreements, referred to as Police Services Agreements (PSAs), also require the companies to make payments for the service. When, for instance, a new rail franchise is awarded by the Department for Transport, the winning company is usually required to enter into a new or existing PSA with the BTPA.

 

[adc82140]

Would I be right in thinking that any police officer can arrest anyone anywhere in the UK if they suspect a crime has been committed, or can intervene if there is a danger to life? That means that effectively BTP have jurisdicion everywhere, in the same way as a Devon & Cornwall police officer does in for example Yorkshire. However there's a big difference between jurisdicion and what is expected during the course of normal duty.

 

[Wolfie]

Would I be right in thinking that any police officer can arrest anyone anywhere in the UK if they suspect a crime has been committed, or can intervene if there is a danger to life? That means that effectively BTP have jurisdicion everywhere, in the same way as a Devon & Cornwall police officer does in for example Yorkshire. However there's a big difference between jurisdicion and what is expected during the course of normal duty.

I believe that Scotland and NI are different but there are some sort of mutual assistance agreements. England and Wales? As far as l know you are correct.

 

[Towers]

To look at it from a different angle, is there actually a stated requirement for any gates at all? Could the railway not merely replace the gates with simple, clear signage, instructing crossing users accordingly? In doing so they surely have discharged their obligation, perhaps also introducing appropriate speed restrictions - although it sound as though in a lot of cases that is likely to already exist.

If the gates are solely controlled by users, then in reality they offer precious little actual benefit to the HR, and simply become a problem when they are left open. By removing the gates, you remove the problem!

 

[Spartacus]

To look at it from a different angle, is there actually a stated requirement for any gates at all? Could the railway not merely replace the gates with simple, clear signage, instructing crossing users accordingly? In doing so they surely have discharged their obligation, perhaps also introducing appropriate speed restrictions - although it sound as though in a lot of cases that is likely to already exist.

If the gates are solely controlled by users, then in reality they offer precious little actual benefit to the HR, and simply become a problem when they are left open. By removing the gates, you remove the problem!

You don't discharge your obligation, but you do introduce a heck of a lot more risk, and I doubt such a backwards step would be allowed by the inspectorate. Crossing users that aren't apt to follow signs at a gated crossing certainly aren't likely to follow them at an ungated crossing, and it's likely to lead to even more misuse, either intentional as people will see an open crossing as less risky, or unintentional as people might simply miss that the crossing or signs are there until too late. Either way, not a good idea, just look at what happened at Lockington, a fairly low speed crash with a car on an open crossing.

 

[driverd]

You don't discharge your obligation, but you do introduce a heck of a lot more risk, and I doubt such a backwards step would be allowed by the inspectorate. Crossing users that aren't apt to follow signs at a gated crossing certainly aren't likely to follow them at an ungated crossing, and it's likely to lead to even more misuse, either intentional as people will see an open crossing as less risky, or unintentional as people might simply miss that the crossing or signs are there until too late. Either way, not a good idea, just look at what happened at Lockington, a fairly low speed crash with a car on an open crossing.

I entirely disagree. Let's just go back to where this started - the issue is primarily near misses involving those not used to using the crossing. On seeing the open gates, they may even mistake them for simple farm gates between fields. The visual cue of an open gate may substantially distract, perhaps enough so for them to visually miss all other signage (we shouldn't underestimate people's ability to miss the obvious here). Remember, most road users are used to encountering CCTV/OD level crossings, where open gates means safe to cross, irrespective of signage.

Remove said gates and improve signage, and the key "attention getter" becomes the signage. This, in turn, encourages responsible use. A vaguely relevant study was done in the Netherlands, that looked at pedestrian and motorist behaviour around busy town centre junctions. The surprising findings were that safety was improved by reducing signage and pedestrian/vehicle separation. The reduced "clutter" encouraged more situational awareness amongst all road users and saw safety improved. Human factors aren't always straight forward.

This is an interesting discussion to read through. I think there's a really important point touched upon on the previous page; when it comes to preserved railways, we are talking about a group of people indulging in their hobby. We therefore have to ask to what extent it is reasonable to disrupt the lives of the railways neighbours in order for them to carry out such activities. Arguably, if the railway frequently observes both use and misuse of the crossing, it becomes their responsibility, as much as the users, to look at risk assessing usage. If we're talking about an access crossing, for instance, used to access a remote field once or twice a week, clearly the risk is much lower. If we're talking about a gate used to access a residential property, that may see usage 10 or so times per day, by both the home owner and other members of the public, the risk becomes far greater. My opinion would be that the railway should consider other methods than an onerous 2 gate system that takes considerable time to operate, places the user on the railway for prolonged periods and may actually encourage a more relaxed attitude to being in a position of danger. A simple solution would be a red/green light crossing. This could be treadle or track circuit operated and as alluded to above, should be in lieu of any gates at all and taken with a possible reduction in line speed, enabling approaching trains to stop should the line be observed not to be clear (given line speed is so low, and AOCLs exist on the main line, shouldn't be beyond the wit of man).

EDIT: After visiting wikipedia, I'd also just like to add that the Lockington accident seems barely relevant. The line speed in question was 50mph. Heritage railways would be doing 25 max, and likely far less if a sensible approach was taken to a known crossing that's regularly used/misused.

As a further point - perhaps worth even considering a fixed distant and stop board for particularly troublesome crossings. Enthusiasts will love the opportunity for extra noise and clag (or steam equivalent), and to most general public, the marginal journey time increase would surely only represent better value for money?

 

[Spartacus]

I entirely disagree. Let's just go back to where this started - the issue is primarily near misses involving those not used to using the crossing. On seeing the open gates, they may even mistake them for simple farm gates between fields. The visual cue of an open gate may substantially distract, perhaps enough so for them to visually miss all other signage (we shouldn't underestimate people's ability to miss the obvious here). Remember, most road users are used to encountering CCTV/OD level crossings, where open gates means safe to cross, irrespective of signage.

Remove said gates and improve signage, and the key "attention getter" becomes the signage. This, in turn, encourages responsible use. A vaguely relevant study was done in the Netherlands, that looked at pedestrian and motorist behaviour around busy town centre junctions. The surprising findings were that safety was improved by reducing signage and pedestrian/vehicle separation. The reduced "clutter" encouraged more situational awareness amongst all road users and saw safety improved. Human factors aren't always straight forward.

This is an interesting discussion to read through. I think there's a really important point touched upon on the previous page; when it comes to preserved railways, we are talking about a group of people indulging in their hobby. We therefore have to ask to what extent it is reasonable to disrupt the lives of the railways neighbours in order for them to carry out such activities. Arguably, if the railway frequently observes both use and misuse of the crossing, it becomes their responsibility, as much as the users, to look at risk assessing usage. If we're talking about an access crossing, for instance, used to access a remote field once or twice a week, clearly the risk is much lower. If we're talking about a gate used to access a residential property, that may see usage 10 or so times per day, by both the home owner and other members of the public, the risk becomes far greater. My opinion would be that the railway should consider other methods than an onerous 2 gate system that takes considerable time to operate, places the user on the railway for prolonged periods and may actually encourage a more relaxed attitude to being in a position of danger. A simple solution would be a red/green light crossing. This could be treadle or track circuit operated and as alluded to above, should be in lieu of any gates at all and taken with a possible reduction in line speed, enabling approaching trains to stop should the line be observed not to be clear (given line speed is so low, and AOCLs exist on the main line, shouldn't be beyond the wit of man).

EDIT: After visiting wikipedia, I'd also just like to add that the Lockington accident seems barely relevant. The line speed in question was 50mph. Heritage railways would be doing 25 max, and likely far less if a sensible approach was taken to a known crossing that's regularly used/misused.

As a further point - perhaps worth even considering a fixed distant and stop board for particularly troublesome crossings. Enthusiasts will love the opportunity for extra noise and clag (or steam equivalent), and to most general public, the marginal journey time increase would surely only represent better value for money?

Trouble is there's already a great deal, in some cases far too much, signage on the average road, much of which is routinely ignored by road users. As you say, adding clutter is proven not to make many drivers pay any more attention, in fact they're more likely to miss what's important. I don't know how 'improved signage' for an open crossing could at the same time mean less signage, at least when legal obligations are taken into respect. I don't think an open gate's going to be any kind of visual cue or distraction for most drivers, most won't even realise it's there until they're passing it. There's a big risk of adding

I think a fixed distant in such cases would generally be a good idea, along with a red/green light, but given the history of abuse I think a belt and braces approach of gates too wouldn't hurt. You can have all the most obvious signs and illuminated warnings for a low bridge, but the only thing that'll stop many having a go is a physical barrier. And please, a proper way for the public to report faults. With fail safe systems, if they keep failing safe without being properly fixed people start to assume that they've failed more often than not, then might get caught out by an engineering train on a non-running day. Even if they're too lazy to report a fault, they at least don't have an excuse for not doing so.

 

[1955LR]

Why if open crossings are deemed so dangerous do they still exist on Network Rail where general line speeds are higher? There are a number on Heart of Wales line, with a local speed restriction on the rail line . Picture of near Sugar Loaf. turning off the A 483, meaning a long vehicle will be sitting across the crossing while looking for a gap onto the main road.

 

[2HAP]

The crossing in question is on a road that serves both residential and business premises. The road is a private road, not maintained by the relevant Highway Authority. As far as I am aware, the only signs are on the gates themselves. There are no road signs indicating a level crossing ahead. I don't subscribe to the view that as "a heritage railway is only people playing with their 1:1 scale train set" lesser standard need apply, and nor do the relevant authorities. A train hitting a car at 25 mph will have much the same result as one hitting at 50mph. None of us want to see a heritage railway involved in a fatal level crossing accident, do we? There were no issues with the gates being misused when British Rail was operating the line, so why should misuse be allowed to happen now?

As a further point - perhaps worth even considering a fixed distant and stop board for particularly troublesome crossings. Enthusiasts will love the opportunity for extra noise and clag (or steam equivalent), and to most general public, the marginal journey time increase would surely only represent better value for money?

There is another occupation crossing on the HR in question where the HR trains do stop and proceed. Said crossing is shared with Network Rail, whose trains do not have to.

 

[driverd]

The crossing in question is on a road that serves both residential and business premises. The road is a private road, not maintained by the relevant Highway Authority. As far as I am aware, the only signs are on the gates themselves. There are no road signs indicating a level crossing ahead. I don't subscribe to the view that as "a heritage railway is only people playing with their 1:1 scale train set" lesser standard need apply, and nor do the relevant authorities.

So my first point would be that the heritage railway needs to consider their responsibility to road users. Frankly, if there are both residential and business premesis being served, an occupation crossing seems too little protection. In my opinion, the railway should, ideally, be looking into an AHBL/AHB crossing, or as a minimum, atleast red/green lights. Has this area recently been developed or has there just been changes to the use of premises - I'm just curious how an occupation crossing was ever deemed fit for purpose, if the usage is high (how many vehicle movements would you estimate per day?)

The key differences between a preserved railway and a mainline are cost and utility. A mainline railway is not prohibitively expensive to users, preserved lines generally are (often charging more than £1/mile). Secondly, they generally offer a timetable designed for fulfilling the role of a tourist attraction, meaning weekends etc are served, but week days often are not. As a result, they're often of little use to local residents. Journey time, too, is often quite prohibitive to use.

The reality is, that most HR lines are tourist attractions. Yes they help select local businesses, but to many people, especially those being inconvenienced by their existence, they're a pain. Just as with many local attractions, they need to work with their communities and be a functioning part of it - this means compromise on both sides. In fairness, this is even the case for the mainline railway.

I don't know how 'improved signage' for an open crossing could at the same time mean less signage, at least when legal obligations are taken into respect. I don't think an open gate's going to be any kind of visual cue or distraction for most drivers...

In terms of signage I'd argue minimal but effective - the usual and familiar triangle and train sign with a warning cross would seem appropriate - but I have no idea on the legislation and wouldn't claim to have.

As mentioned before, I think its definitely worth remembering that the average road user would relate "open level crossing gate" to "safe to cross", as most only have experience using crossings where this is the case.

I'm certainly not against barriers, I just think ones that are overly onerous to use are not a great idea.

A train hitting a car at 25 mph will have much the same result as one hitting at 50mph. None of us want to see a heritage railway involved in a fatal level crossing accident, do we?

Actually, a train hitting a car at 25mph is unlikely to derail the train. At 25mph it's far more likely the train will be able to stop in line of sight (depending on curvature etc at the location). As suggested above, however, a sensible PSR or use of fixed distant and stop board could reduce the speed further and add a safety margin. Even on rural mainlines (Knaresborough to York as an example), there is this set up - though in this case the stop board is the crossing gate. If its observed to be closed the train proceeds, if its observed to be open the train stops and driver/crossing keeper close it.

I think its quite clear from the conversation that nobody is arguing for deaths on preserved railways. Its about the most effective way to prevent that, along with damage to property, infrastructure etc.

There is another occupation crossing on the HR in question where the HR trains do stop and proceed. Said crossing is shared with Network Rail, whose trains do not have to.

Interesting point - how is the crossing protected on the NR side?

 

[2HAP]

Interesting point - how is the crossing protected on the NR side?

There is a half-barrier both sides, the road being single track. HR train is flagged across. It may be that the crossing is automatic for NR trains and not operated by the HR, hence the need to stop and proceed.

 

[Towers]

Why if open crossings are deemed so dangerous do they still exist on Network Rail where general line speeds are higher? There are a number on Heart of Wales line, with a local speed restriction on the rail line . Picture of near Sugar Loaf. turning off the A 483, meaning a long vehicle will be sitting across the crossing while looking for a gap onto the main road.

This was my thinking; if it's safe enough for NR then it's difficult to see why it wouldn't be safe for a low speed heritage line?