• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Lines for Level Crossing Closures

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
3,192
Location
belfast
Its an anchronism that red zone working is banned but foot crossings still exist.
so you would close every single level crossing that is accesible to pedestrians, so basically every single level crossing in the country?

I'd be in favour of that, provided alternative pedestrian routes are provided, but it is hardly a way to prioritise!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
1,356
Location
Newport
so you would close every single level crossing that is accesible to pedestrians, so basically every single level crossing in the country?
No. My point was simply that rail staff cannot go trackside on a live railway but we leave the public free to cross it with zero training or supervision at foot crossings.

I’ve not been involved in crossings for over a decade but our priorities for closure always started with safety and the historically bad actors.
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
3,192
Location
belfast
No. My point was simply that rail staff cannot go trackside on a live railway but we leave the public free to cross it with zero training or supervision at foot crossings.

I’ve not been involved in crossings for over a decade but our priorities for closure always started with safety and the historically bad actors.
My point was that every single level crossing is effectively a foot crossing for this purpose, as every level crossing is open to use by pedestrians.
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,833
The ones either side of Paignton station, as they prevent the two platforms both being used to turn trains round in without shunting, and slow the DSR down.
Is that a problem? I'm picturing Steam trains from Kingswear at 125 mph ;)
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
1,356
Location
Newport
If a railway crossing is used (legally) by pedestrians, do the risks you refer to not exist whether there are vehicles as well or not?
No. At public vehicular crossings there are either variously barriers, lights or simply telephones to contact the signaller and obtain permission to cross.

Many foot crossings are simply a gate, signage and a boarded crossing.

Not all crossings are uniformly safe. MCBOD (full automatic barriers and obstacle detection) is considered to be the safest in the UK.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,029
Location
Bristol
In a town centre location it would be very difficult to provide grade separation for motor traffic anywhere near the site.
There is a very strong argument that level crossing removals should look at wider scale traffic rerouting than just one side of the fence to the other. In a town centre this is multiplied by any strategic objective to reduce motor traffic in the town centre area itself.
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
3,192
Location
belfast
There is a very strong argument that level crossing removals should look at wider scale traffic rerouting than just one side of the fence to the other. In a town centre this is multiplied by any strategic objective to reduce motor traffic in the town centre area itself.
Agreed, put a foot bridge or tunnel where the level crossing used to be, or elsewhere nearby, and reroute vehicular traffic away from the town centre.

No. At public vehicular crossings there are either variously barriers, lights or simply telephones to contact the signaller and obtain permission to cross.

Many foot crossings are simply a gate, signage and a boarded crossing.

Not all crossings are uniformly safe. MCBOD (full automatic barriers and obstacle detection) is considered to be the safest in the UK.
Oh you are talking about the safety systems in place at different crossings, that explains the confusion.

Are there foot crossings with lights, barriers, or something like that in the UK? I've seen them in other countries, but I've not encountered them around here.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
7,536
As a general statement, in an ideal world I'd like to remove all level crossings (whether foot or vehicle) crossing 3rd rail electrified lines, as the live rail is a constant danger whether trains are passing or not.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,906
Location
Torbay
There is a very strong argument that level crossing removals should look at wider scale traffic rerouting than just one side of the fence to the other. In a town centre this is multiplied by any strategic objective to reduce motor traffic in the town centre area itself.
Torbay Borough Council, under a brief spell of Lib Dem control, partially closed Torbay Road to motor traffic as part of such a rethink. This street crosses the railway and connects the bus and rail stations and town centre to the seafront and beach. It's very busy with pedestrians, especially in the summer, and is lined with tourist shops, cafes, fruit machine arcades and a massive Wetherspoons. The pedestrian scheme would have virtually eliminated vehicular traffic over the railway, with only limited delivery and emergency services access retained. It would also have included a conversion of a redundant left turn lane on the west side to a bus lane and stop so north to south buses could briefly drop off on the way to the bus station which requires a further 1/4 mile circuit of the gyratory through two light controlled junctions to reach the stand a few metres from where they just passed right in front of the rail station. TBC had surveyed the general public to justify the measures, which had shown large-scale support. As soon as the plans became more concrete with an initial trial of the ideas however, traders and others began a strong campaign of opposition. Then, when Conservatives regained power shortly after, it was the first thing they reversed, immediately reopening the road fully to all traffic.

There is another means of crossing the railway about 600m to the north at Lower Polsham Road. This is a narrow one way lane from west to east crossing the tracks via a 4m height-limited underbridge. The whole area either side of the railway and out to the modern seafront along this stretch is extremely low-lying, being former salt marshes reclaimed in the Victorian era, so going under the railway is always likely to be challenging. A scheme is in development for strengthened sea defenses. There is a park alongside the railway between Torbay Rd and Lower Polsham Rd through which a notional new road might be constructed without demolition, passing over the railway, then descending on the east side in an area where some large car parking structures are currently being demolished. I can't see it ever being acceptable to despoil such a pleasant, popular open space as Victoria Park however. Maybe they could have got away with it in the 1970s...

BR attempted to close Sands Rd crossing again, I think in the 1980s when resignalling was in development. The owner of the mini supermarket on the corner of Sands Rd and Dartmouth Rd, on the west side of the railway, was most strident in opposition to the proposal, claiming it would affect their trade from people on the seafront crossing the line.
 
Last edited:

milooo

New Member
Joined
3 Dec 2024
Messages
4
Location
Stevenage
As a general statement, in an ideal world I'd like to remove all level crossings (whether foot or vehicle) crossing 3rd rail electrified lines, as the live rail is a constant danger whether trains are passing or not.
Agreed. But unfortunately the ECML South of Grantham (when it is fully upgraded to 140 operations) would also be a new constant danger as well. It unfortunately is probably either one or the other which is a shame
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,517
Location
Yorkshire
As a general statement, in an ideal world I'd like to remove all level crossings (whether foot or vehicle) crossing 3rd rail electrified lines, as the live rail is a constant danger whether trains are passing or not.
It's only an additional danger if members of the public wander off in a direction they shouldn't.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,039
when it is fully upgraded to 140 operations

if rather than when!


Meanwhile, two people were killed when using footpath level crossings over the weekend, within minutes of each other, albeit at different ends of the country.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,906
Location
Torbay
It's only an additional danger if members of the public wander off in a direction they shouldn't.
That might be detected by intruder alarm systems at any crossings and other potential access points that remain. With the possibility of small batteries on board all DC units, gaps in live conductors could become longer around such potential access points.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,517
Location
Yorkshire
That might be detected by intruder alarm systems at any crossings and other potential access points that remain. With the possibility of small batteries on board all DC units, gaps in live conductors could become longer around such potential access points.
How long do the gaps actually need to be? I'm not sure if there's a rule stating how far from the crossing the end of the juice rail has to be, but I can't recall ever crossing a line with 3rd rail where the distance was less than 2m. Pretty much every DC EMU is 3-cars minimum now (466s aside, which don't run solo these days anyway as a rule) so the risk of "gapping" at a crossing is negligible. Batteries really shouldn't be necessary to handle crossings outside of specific locations where nearby switches or crossings happen to line up in an unfortunate manner with gaps due to a level crossing- which could leave multiple shoe-fitted bogies "gapped".
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
7,536
It's only an additional danger if members of the public wander off in a direction they shouldn't.
That's always a risk though, and whether it's an acceptable risk now I'm not sure.

The London Underground for example is MUCH more secure than the "southern" 3rd rail area, with no (public) pedestrian crossings, and strong fences along lines and bridges to prevent any access to the tracks, whereas on the southern, you can cross a track completely unsupervised, a short distance away from lethal live rails.
PXL_20220513_143539479.jpg
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,906
Location
Torbay
How long do the gaps actually need to be? I'm not sure if there's a rule stating how far from the crossing the end of the juice rail has to be, but I can't recall ever crossing a line with 3rd rail where the distance was less than 2m. Pretty much every DC EMU is 3-cars minimum now (466s aside, which don't run solo these days anyway as a rule) so the risk of "gapping" at a crossing is negligible. Batteries really shouldn't be necessary to handle crossings outside of specific locations where nearby switches or crossings happen to line up in an unfortunate manner with gaps due to a level crossing- which could leave multiple shoe-fitted bogies "gapped".
I'm suggesting that if a particular line is operated wholly by battery-equipped units then longer gaps might be tolerable, and desirable. If the conductor could end (say) 200m from a crossing, then at the moment of alert, a trespasser wouldn't be in immediate danger from the 3rd rail itself. There would be time to formulate an appropriate response and even if that is isolation of the wider approach sections, it needn't stop trains moving. They could still be cautioned through the area on battery while the incident is cleared. That ability to keep on motoring through an isolation whether planned or unexpected is a major resilience benefit of having at least a moderately sized emergency battery that could get passengers to the next station in a widespread outage.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,517
Location
Yorkshire
I'm suggesting that if a particular line is operated wholly by battery-equipped units then longer gaps might be tolerable, and desirable. If the conductor could end (say) 200m from a crossing, then at the moment of alert, a trespasser wouldn't be in immediate danger from the 3rd rail itself. There would be time to formulate an appropriate response and even if that is isolation of the wider approach sections, it needn't stop trains moving. They could still be cautioned through the area on battery while the incident is cleared. That ability to keep on motoring through an isolation whether planned or unexpected is a major resilience benefit of having at least a moderately sized emergency battery that could get passengers to the next station in a widespread outage.
200m is a ridiculous margin for error though. The Waterloo to Reading line has so many crossings that you'd essentially be de-electrifying a good chunk of the route. I think there has to be a point where we accept that if someone has got themselves into a dangerous situation it's on them.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,906
Location
Torbay
200m is a ridiculous margin for error though.
Maybe that's too much. It's just an example figure to illustrate the principle.
The Waterloo to Reading line has so many crossings that you'd essentially be de-electrifying a good chunk of the route.
Perhaps, but batteries could allow that, and could greatly simplify complex junction area conductor provision. I also think more crossings should be closed where possible, especially uncontrolled rural footpaths and occupation crossings, and all crossings on the fastest and busiest portions of our trunk mainline railways, whether electrified or not.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
20,552
Location
Airedale
I know the area well from many holidays around there. I would have though a better bet would be to build a bridge over the railway line a little south-east of the crossing and a new section of road for the A6068 to join the A629 at a new junction. The new bit of road would run on the north side and parallel to the Eastburn Beck where there is a reasonably clear run. Putting a bridge at the Kildwick crossing is difficult due to both housing and industry close to the site.
North of the railway is shed-on-the-bypass development (still open fields when I lived in Cononley 25 years ago) - a road parallel to the existing would affect 1-2 businesses; it wouldn't be difficult to avoid the couple of older properties on the south side of the railway and end up near the B6265/A6068 traffic lights or at your Eastburn Beck location. Simpler and cheaper then putting in a new junction on the dual carriageway IMO.
Anyway, from a road traffic POV it's a priority!

With the crossing gone, you might then be able to reopen Crosshills and Kildwick station - but not at the expense of Cononley :)
 

InTheEastMids

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2016
Messages
967
I'll add another vote for

ECML south of Northallerton

If I had to pick one, I'd go for Tallington, It has a lot of trains (looks like about 18 per hour), where they are travelling at high speed (assuming 125 or near to it?), and the road is - unusually - an A-road. In my experience, it's not uncommon to wait 10 minutes for the barriers to go up, only to find they come back down again before the backlog of traffic has cleared. That really frustrates and might increase the risk of unsafe behaviour by drivers.

It isn't somewhere that can be easily solved with a bridge, the solution seems to be tied up in link roads either side that would bypass Tallington, which then I expect needs funding from elsewhere.
Then there are 5(?) other similar LC just between Peterborough and Grantham that either need to be looked at.
 

Bill57p9

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2019
Messages
659
Location
Ayrshire
Are there foot crossings with lights, barriers, or something like that in the UK? I've seen them in other countries, but I've not encountered them around here.
There are gated foot crossings with red/green lights and electromagnetic locks on the gates to achieve the effect.

Example from Trent Lane, Burton Joyce, Notts:
IMG_0024.jpeg

I do not know the proper name for these
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,517
Location
Yorkshire
Maybe that's too much. It's just an example figure to illustrate the principle.
There's already a gap in the live rail at crossings, and that gap is a fair bit larger than the width of the crossing. There's also (usually) anti-trespass surfaces installed either side of the crossing. Have there been any instances in recent memory of a person who wasn't trespassing being electrocuted through falling off a crossing? Whilst we can't completely ignore the safety of those who deliberately trespass, I feel that the present arrangement is sufficient, outside of the inherent risks of crossings in general (i.e. regardless of whether the line is electrified).

I'd expect small traction batteries for recovery and depot use to become more widespread as fleets are replaced, but I don't see crossings as being a major factor in that direction. It's more that once you've got them, the reduced risk of gapping is an added bonus.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
8,582
Location
Taunton or Kent
If a level crossing was to be closed, with a bridge and ramps installed exactly where the crossing is, how long would this take to construct? This would be necessary in places where there is no space to build next to the crossing, but would be a very disruptive closure, both with road and rail.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
17,579
If a level crossing was to be closed, with a bridge and ramps installed exactly where the crossing is, how long would this take to construct? This would be necessary in places where there is no space to build next to the crossing, but would be a very disruptive closure, both with road and rail.
Rail closure wouldn't be that disruptive, they tend just to be for the beams.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,029
Location
Bristol
If a level crossing was to be closed, with a bridge and ramps installed exactly where the crossing is, how long would this take to construct? This would be necessary in places where there is no space to build next to the crossing, but would be a very disruptive closure, both with road and rail.
It depends what's buried in the road, and how easy construction access is to both sides. If there's not space for an offline bridge, access probably isn't very easy.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,039
If a level crossing was to be closed, with a bridge and ramps installed exactly where the crossing is, how long would this take to construct? This would be necessary in places where there is no space to build next to the crossing, but would be a very disruptive closure, both with road and rail.

How long is a piece of string!

Building upwards is easier than building downwards, and moving the road up or down is easier than moving the railway up or down.

By far the easiest thing to do is close the crossing snd build a fence. This has been done at many, many level crossing closures (certainly more than half of the approx 1,400 that have been closed in the last 20 years or so).
 

Top