Mid Wales railway faces huge bill for a new level crossing

[merlodlliw]

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/nor...bill-for-a-new-level-crossing-55578-30049523/

 

[bluenoxid]

ah I feel sorry for them for this. A huge budget for a very unlikely incident.

 

[Chris125]

I would hardly call an accident 'very unlikely', near misses and minor accidents have happened too often on the WLLR - its the inevitable consequence of busier roads. If this was every crossing it would be an overreaction, but its not - its one LC, on a B-road, with poor sightlines. Seems entirely sensible to me.

Chris

 

[lancastrian]

This is typical. The railway is not to blame, BUT they have to pay to improve the level crossing. Surely the money should be at least shared 50/50 with the Highways Agency. My personal view is that as the problem is with the ROAD traffic, then the Highways Agency should pay the full cost.

 

[Bevan Price]

Over reaction by bureaucrats. If they need a warning, it should be enough to have railway-controlled traffic lights on the road approach to the level crossing. Lights set to turn red when train is imminent, green (or switched off) when no trains are in the vicinity.

 

[lancastrian]

Over reaction by bureaucrats. If they need a warning, it should be enough to have railway-controlled traffic lights on the road approach to the level crossing. Lights set to turn red when train is imminent, green (or switched off) when no trains are in the vicinity.

Quite right, this is just common sense, but because of that 'Bureacrats' will force through the most costly system. To the detriment of the railway, which contributes a great deal to the local economy.

 

[tsr]

This is typical. The railway is not to blame, BUT they have to pay to improve the level crossing. Surely the money should be at least shared 50/50 with the Highways Agency. My personal view is that as the problem is with the ROAD traffic, then the Highways Agency should pay the full cost.

You mean the local Highways Authority, I think, as I doubt that the Highways Agency is managing the stretch of road over the crossing (forgive me if I'm wrong).

I personally cannot see anything wrong with a requirement to install lights, but barriers seem to me to be a bit of an excessive request. There are plenty of B-class roads in the UK where you have poor visibility at road junctions, and traffic lights do just fine in these situations. I cannot see how a train moving at "walking pace" is less safe - more so, probably, than a busy traffic flow on one road in conflict with that on another road. If people ignore a set of level crossing lights, it's not unheard of for them to drive through barriers as well. At the very least, if the local council or whoever is managing the road want a "failsafe" (not that it really would be) system when a simpler one would be quite acceptable, then perhaps they could fund the extra facilities.

I am merely saying this from my knowledge of junctions and level crossings in general, and obviously if I have missed any crucial safety consideration that's unique to the site then please forgive me, as I am making an educated guess, having not visited the site.

 

[robvulpes]

You mean the local Highways Authority, I think, as I doubt that the Highways Agency is managing the stretch of road over the crossing (forgive me if I'm wrong).

You are definitely not wrong as the Highways Agency is responsible only for trunk roads in England so this minor road in Wales fails on two counts.

Rob

 

[tsr]

You are definitely not wrong as the Highways Agency is responsible only for trunk roads in England so this minor road in Wales fails on two counts.

Rob

Of course - silly me - should've noticed that it was in Wales! Therefore I am of course correct!

 

[exile]

At Burneside (Kendal) there is a crossing where the train comes to a halt and proceeds at walking pace across the road.... why not try that here?

 

[PaulLothian]

How about a combination of traffic lights and speed bumps? If speed bumps are supposed to slow a vehicle down outside schools to a speed where it can stop if a child runs out, I would hope it might work for rather larger objects crossing the road! And every driver ought to recognise and understand traffic lights...

 

[tsr]

How about a combination of traffic lights and speed bumps? If speed bumps are supposed to slow a vehicle down outside schools to a speed where it can stop if a child runs out, I would hope it might work for rather larger objects crossing the road! And every driver ought to recognise and understand traffic lights...

Most people speed up between speed bumps, which is precisely where the crossing would be, plus they can lead to damage to the foundations of nearby structures when vehicles bounce across them, and I imagine railway lines could also be knocked out of place over time. That's not to mention the increase in potholes near them, which could lead to swerving on the crossing, and the problems you get with car suspensions... I think traffic calming islands (not in areas of queuing traffic!) and tactile paving are far more useful, in addition to clear signage, as prescribed in the TSRGD.

 

[PaulLothian]

Most people speed up between speed bumps, which is precisely where the crossing would be, plus they can lead to damage to the foundations of nearby structures when vehicles bounce across them, and I imagine railway lines could also be knocked out of place over time. That's not to mention the increase in potholes near them, which could lead to swerving on the crossing, and the problems you get with car suspensions... I think traffic calming islands (not in areas of queuing traffic!) and tactile paving are far more useful, in addition to clear signage, as prescribed in the TSRGD.

Fair points, and I was being slightly flippant when I suggested speed bumps. I think we are in agreement that this is in essence a road traffic management problem. We don't normally expect to have gates at a point where a tram crosses a road, and I don't remember this railway travelling as fast as a tram!

 

[tsr]

Fair points, and I was being slightly flippant when I suggested speed bumps. I think we are in agreement that this is in essence a road traffic management problem. We don't normally expect to have gates at a point where a tram crosses a road, and I don't remember this railway travelling as fast as a tram!

Well, it has to be a road traffic management problem, if the precedent and intended solution are both in accordance with the train or trains having priority over road traffic. I think the real concern with level crossings anywhere is that there are few ways a train at speed can avoid a problem, and gates simply prevent drivers moving their vehicles - for whatever reason - into what should be a sterile area, free of obstructions and entirely in favour of the train or trains. In this scenario, the train or trains moving over the crossing are not likely to be at speed, though.

For simple wig-wag lights, traffic sensors and rail triggers to be installed, as well as W boards and railway signalling you're looking at a materials-only fee of £60,000, and I'm being very generous - never mind labour, consultancy, safety assessments and so on. Barriers themselves are not particularly expensive as traffic management materials go, but they would probably be an unnecessary expense.

A simpler set of traffic lights, with all the above except with circuitry that does not rely on inputs from traffic sensors, might be able to be purchased for £50,000 at a squeeze. It's still half-price...

This is also assuming that the management systems are in accordance with the tramway and light rail regulations, not those for heavy rail. £100,000 is very generous if you're looking at "Network Rail standard" equipment.

 

[ChrisCooper]

At the end of the day if it prevents accidents then surely it's money well spent. It's also important to remember that in most cases the road was there before the railway, hence the legal responsiblity being on the railway.

 

[ole man]

The level crossing at Deganwy is being renewed, maybe the company doing the renewal could keep some of the equipment?
Also Steventon LX near Didcot was recently dismantled, and also Mobberley near Northwich.
The Mid Wales railway have to nothing to lose by asking, and yes i do know who is doing it.
If anybody knows anybody from the Mid Wales railway who might need some of the equipment PM me, and i'll see what i can do

 

[Chris125]

It should probably be pointed out the 'mid wales railway' being talked about is the Welshpool and Llanfair (WLLR).

Chris

 

[Roylang]

At the end of the day if it prevents accidents then surely it's money well spent. It's also important to remember that in most cases the road was there before the railway, hence the legal responsiblity being on the railway.

I would argue against that on two points:

Firstly, that is safety at any cost and few can afford that today. Safety measures should be performed against a cost and benefits analysis, which in this case seems to not be reasonably undertaken by the ORR.

Secondly, in the vast majority of cases accident will be the fault of the road user, so whilst what you say is legally correct, why should the railway pay for the stupidity of the road user?

Roy

 

[IanD]

I'd say send the bill to the original road user whose actions led to the need for an investigation in the first place. Seems that they were totally to blame for that incident so should be liable for any negative financial consequences to the injured party.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Should get the person who drove into the train to pay, they went into the train, not the other way around.

 

[Rogercas]

The volume of road traffic crossing the W&L at the point in question is small.
Approaching from the north (i.e from the A458) visibility is good, but from the other direction the crossing is below the brow of a hill and anyone unfamiliar with it might not respond in time.

However, we're talking about a light railway. Surely well placed flashing red lights similar to those on the Festiniog at Tanygrisiau are all that is required rather than a 'main line' set up with barriers. (even if you do have to have wretched sirens as on the F.R!!!)

Problem is due I guess to non local drivers who are unfamiliar with the crossings and who cannot interpret the standard highway signage that is in place.

 

[tsr]

Problem is due I guess to non local drivers who are unfamiliar with the crossings and who cannot interpret the standard highway signage that is in place.

If a road vehicle driver cannot interpret any standard signage provided as prescribed in the TSRGD and other documents, well, then, that's their problem, unless it could be made easier for them to understand with countdown bar markers (like the ones before motorway sliproads, except red on white) or if the signage is hidden, in which case it should have been moved by now. The placing of signage warning of a level crossing on any road is tightly controlled, even for light railways. Any driver should be able to also understand the risk of unexpected hazards after the brow of a hill. Their lack of anticipation is not a reflection of any fault on the part of the railway. It is simply an unacceptable standard of driving, no matter how much people claim that "it's easy to make mistakes" and that "we all do it".

I'm not suggesting you endorse poor driving or misunderstanding of signage, by the way.

EDIT: I have had a look on Google StreetView (the best tool I have under the circumstances). Further signage in the form of a backlit additional warning sign 200 yards away, as well as countdown markers at 50 yard intervals from that location, should be a valid improvement. If you're interested, the minimum cost would probably be £4,000 including a temporary two-way traffic control, materials and labour, for each approach to the crossing. There is virtually no justification that I can see for a barrier/light controlled crossing. If I recall correctly, that existing signage was pretty much in compliance with the relevant regulations at the time of construction, but I'm not going to say this on any legal grounds!

 

[lancastrian]

You mean the local Highways Authority, I think, as I doubt that the Highways Agency is managing the stretch of road over the crossing (forgive me if I'm wrong).

I personally cannot see anything wrong with a requirement to install lights, but barriers seem to me to be a bit of an excessive request. There are plenty of B-class roads in the UK where you have poor visibility at road junctions, and traffic lights do just fine in these situations. I cannot see how a train moving at "walking pace" is less safe - more so, probably, than a busy traffic flow on one road in conflict with that on another road. If people ignore a set of level crossing lights, it's not unheard of for them to drive through barriers as well. At the very least, if the local council or whoever is managing the road want a "failsafe" (not that it really would be) system when a simpler one would be quite acceptable, then perhaps they could fund the extra facilities.

I am merely saying this from my knowledge of junctions and level crossings in general, and obviously if I have missed any crucial safety consideration that's unique to the site then please forgive me, as I am making an educated guess, having not visited the site.

OK I stand corrected about who is resonsable for the road in question, but that doesn't alter my basic comment that it is whoever is responsable for the road should bare the cost mot the Welshpool & Llanfair Light Railway. It proberbly brings in hundreds of thousands of pounds to the local economy every year. My son and I spent about £50 on the railway and over a £200 locally on food, petrol and accomodation on the weekend we were there.

 

[Rogercas]

tsr.

Thanks for your views.

Unfortunately I am not associated with the W&L (well not for the last 40 odd years) but live fairly local to it, and know the crossing well.

I have little doubt that the railway and Powys Council will find a sensiblelow cost solution.

 

[WatcherZero]

On the topic of level crossings, NR has just put out a press release announcing it has closed the 500th level crossing since 2009 with another 250 to close before April 2014.

 

[tsr]

Thanks for your views.

My pleasure.

Unfortunately I am not associated with the W&L (well not for the last 40 odd years) but live fairly local to it, and know the crossing well.

Well, you're more local than I am, so if I've missed anything, such as community feedback, feel free to comment.

I have little doubt that the railway and Powys Council will find a sensible low cost solution.

I hope they do. I have merely outlined why I think the "huge bill" would be unnecessary, and also some alternatives that I think could be viable, should sensible and complete assessments surveys on-site permit any of them.

 

[DaveHarries]

Another possibly cheaper option for the MWR would be to hang on until the summer and then speak to NR about acquiring the gate cabin + semaphores + lever frame + gates from somewhere such as Eccles Road. It looks to me as if something like that might suffice for Castle Caereinion. But that is going from what I can see on Google Earth.

In regards of Mobberley LC, the site run by Phil Deaves has no closure date for the box. Has the box gone as well or is it simply a case of the LC being renewed there?

Dave

 

[Rogercas]

Speaking of Castle Caereinion, I wonder if anyone actually knows why there is a GW type signal box there? The line was always operated by one engine in steam only even when there was a passenger service up to 1931 and there were never any semaphore signals, only two points to the loop - which was classed as a goods siding.

My only guess is that it was put in by the GW after 1923 as a modernisaton scheme which didn't progress. Certainly there is no sign of a lever frame ever having been installed. I don't think it served to shelter anyone operating the crossing gates as those were always guard operated. There were no other signal boxes on the line.

Anyone able to shed light?