Offord Cluny Level Crossing on ECML - has it been replaced by a bridge ?

[PhilipW]

The local Cambridgeshire paper reports that the Offord Cluny Level Crossing south of Huntingdon on the ECML has been closed.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Hun...ys-theres-a-long-way-to-go-20140121145803.htm

"Incredibly dangerous” level crossings are being closed by Network Rail, and the 750th to go, in Station Lane, Offord Cluny marks a milestone.

It means 10 per cent of the country’s level crossings have been shut.

But the mother of a teenage girl killed by a train has said Network Rail still has a long way to go.

Tina Hughes, whose 14-year-old daughter was killed as she crossed the tracks at Elsenham in Essex with a friend, said she welcomed news that the company had reached its target of closing 10 per cent of Britain’s level crossings - 750 - since 2010.

The Offord Cluny crossing closed on January 15 this year.

Read more: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Hun...ng-way-to-go-20140121145803.htm#ixzz2r7cN1j9x

I have not read any report of it being replaced by a bridge. Has it been replaced or has it just closed ?

Personally I think that all Level Crossings on the ECML south of Peterborough should be replaced by bridges. I'm not sure if that is the view of Network Rail. If it is, they don't seem to be very pro-active in pursuing that aim.

 

[GB]

I don't think you quite understand how long, how much red tape and how much local opposition there could be to actually close level crossings.

 

[The Planner]

Not cheap either, about £500K for a pedestrian bridge.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Not cheap either, about £500K for a pedestrian bridge.

And the rest, if you use NR price indicators, £500k wouldn't even get you steps on one side

 

[transmanche]

Personally I think that all Level Crossings on the ECML south of Peterborough should be replaced by bridges. I'm not sure if that is the view of Network Rail. If it is, they don't seem to be very pro-active in pursuing that aim.

According to a BBC News report today, Network Rail have closed 750 level crossings since 2010. And they plan to close 500 more over the next five years.

 

[The Planner]

And the rest, if you use NR price indicators, £500k wouldn't even get you steps on one side

It has done a bridge on the WCML north of Preston and closed the crossing.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Personally I think that all Level Crossings on the ECML south of Peterborough should be replaced by bridges. I'm not sure if that is the view of Network Rail. If it is, they don't seem to be very pro-active in pursuing that aim.

Network Rail don't want to keep any level crossings open, anywhere. They introduce a great technical and safety risk to the operation of the railway and when things go wrong, the costs are simply enormous. Allowing 125mph trains to come in contact with vehicles is simply ridiculous.

 

[Gathursty]

I can't imagine Hest Bank Crossing ever being replaced by a road bridge.

 

[Intercity91]

The local Cambridgeshire paper reports that the Offord Cluny Level Crossing south of Huntingdon on the ECML has been closed.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Hun...ys-theres-a-long-way-to-go-20140121145803.htm

I have not read any report of it being replaced by a bridge. Has it been replaced or has it just closed ?

Personally I think that all Level Crossings on the ECML south of Peterborough should be replaced by bridges. I'm not sure if that is the view of Network Rail. If it is, they don't seem to be very pro-active in pursuing that aim.

Cardells User Crossing has been closed just south of Offord. It's just not very clear in the newspaper report which crossing they are referring to. Offord CCTV crossing is still open.

 

[Bantamzen]

At the risk of courting some controversy here, there’s one thing puzzles me about the desire in recent years to eliminate all level crossings. I've always been led to believe that when using a level crossing if the lights or warning signals were activated, the general rule of thumb was not to attempt to cross the tracks until the train passed & the warnings ceased. And in the case of crossings without warnings, you used your eyes, ears & common sense to check that there was no sign of an oncoming train & then crossed as quickly as possible. Has something changed in recent years, or is it that some people seem to apply the "It won't happen to me" mentality & take unnecessary risks?

To completely eliminate all level crossings will be a hugely expensive project, which in some case will cause inconvenience to the people who usually use them to safeguard a few halfwits that rarely do.

 

[PhilipW]

Cardells User Crossing has been closed just south of Offord. It's just not very clear in the newspaper report which crossing they are referring to. Offord CCTV crossing is still open.

Thanks, I suspect that is the one. I did think it rather strange that a road crossing could have been closed without there being any mention of a replacement bridge.

Looking at my Road Atlas, I see that there are at least 5 road Level Crossings between Sandy and Peterborough, some crossing 4 tracks. As the southern part of the ECML is considered as one of Britain's key routes, I remain somewhat surprised that there appear to be no plans to replace them with bridges. Yes, I realise that bridges are expensive and can be complex but keeping Level Crossings on the rail equivalent of the M1 just seems to be asking for trouble.

 

[Tomnick]

Allowing 125mph trains to come in contact with vehicles is simply ridiculous.

They don't come into contact with trains, generally! I'm not convinced that the abolition of the full-barriers crossings (and their replacement with expensive bridges) is anything like justified. Contrary to what Bob Crow, the media and some posters here would have you believe, not all level crossings are dangerous - even accounting for misuse. The only real risks at full-barrier crossings are from the signalman failing to spot an obstruction before clearing the protecting signals (and that's more likely to be a pedestrian, who can hopefully get to a position of relative safety, than any sort of motor vehicle) and from a vehicle crashing through the barriers - so rather less to go wrong than at a half-barrier or user-worked crossing. On that basis, I really don't see the problem with these crossings!

 

[jopsuk]

replacing a level crossing with a bridge doesn't just have safety improvements (the "it's their own fault if they get hit" attitude is rather unfair on train drivers in the case of pedestrians, and entire train loads in the case of motor vehicles) but can also improve motor traffic flow and in some cases allow for higher rail line speeds..

I'm not sure if there's actually been an increase in incidents per crossing or not, but even if it has remained roughly level, it's quite clear that merely trying to educate people to the dangers doesn't seem to reduce incidents.

 

[55018ballymoss]

Sorry but I have to challenge TomNick.
Even with full barrier crossings, I have had my crossing blocked by a coach stopped in the yellow no stopping markings because he did not look ahead to see the queuing traffic.
I have even had my crossing blocked by a VW Golf who charged to beat the barrier on the nearest side, without realising that the barrier on the far side was lowering at the same time!
In all cases it takes time to release the crossing, causes delay to trains, and unnecessary risk to trains. The example with the Golf was where I was lowering the barriers for an express, if it had passed the protecting signal at danger, it could have been a nasty accident.
I agree that common sense would suggest that everyone would use a crossing as intended, but from experience, as soon as the crossing is activated and starts to lower, common sense is the first thing that is lost and people really do need saving from themselves!

 

[edwin_m]

Sorry but I have to challenge TomNick.
Even with full barrier crossings, I have had my crossing blocked by a coach stopped in the yellow no stopping markings because he did not look ahead to see the queuing traffic.
I have even had my crossing blocked by a VW Golf who charged to beat the barrier on the nearest side, without realising that the barrier on the far side was lowering at the same time!
In all cases it takes time to release the crossing, causes delay to trains, and unnecessary risk to trains. The example with the Golf was where I was lowering the barriers for an express, if it had passed the protecting signal at danger, it could have been a nasty accident.

On a full barrier crossing this isn't a safety concern, or at least it is very much less of one than it would be with a half barrier. The signals will not be cleared until either the operator has pressed a button to confirm the crossing is clear, or the same check has been made by an automatic obstacle detector. Given the small number of SPADs these days and the presence of TPWS, the chances of a SPAD causing a train to hit a vehicle stopped on a crossing are vanishingly remote. There is however a safety risk if someone jumps over or ploughs through the closed barriers, when the operator may no longer be looking at the crossing and even if they see something it may be too late to stop the train.

Full barrier crossings have a very good safety record, and although Moreton-on-Lugg was a tragic exception it was due to factors that existed at only a few other places and should by now have been eliminated. The replacement of full barrier crossings is more likely to be triggered by reducing operating costs, reducing operational disruption from the type of incident described, or improving flow on the road by eliminating the blockage during closure times.

With half-barrier and red-green warning light crossings, it is up to the vehicle or pedestrian to obey the warnings given, and the overwhelming majority of accidents are due to them failing to do this. In my view the highway authority should be paying a large slice of the costs of making these safer or eliminating them, as the increase in risk is down to the extra traffic and (perhaps - difficult to prove or disprove) worsening behaviour by users.

Some footpath, occupation and accommodation crossings have no warning equipment and it is up to users to look for approaching trains. Here the protection may be upgraded if the frequency or speed of trains increases and it is reasonable for this to be at the railway's expense.

 

[Tomnick]

Sorry but I have to challenge TomNick.
Even with full barrier crossings, I have had my crossing blocked by a coach stopped in the yellow no stopping markings because he did not look ahead to see the queuing traffic.
I have even had my crossing blocked by a VW Golf who charged to beat the barrier on the nearest side, without realising that the barrier on the far side was lowering at the same time!
In all cases it takes time to release the crossing, causes delay to trains, and unnecessary risk to trains. The example with the Golf was where I was lowering the barriers for an express, if it had passed the protecting signal at danger, it could have been a nasty accident.
I agree that common sense would suggest that everyone would use a crossing as intended, but from experience, as soon as the crossing is activated and starts to lower, common sense is the first thing that is lost and people really do need saving from themselves!

As above though, that's not a significant safety risk (though I do accept the increased SPAD risk - queuing traffic blocked the crossing at the box next door, one evening, for sufficient time for the approaching train to come to a stand at the protecting signal and phone the box!) though it is an operational inconvenience. The worst crossings for that sort of behaviour tend to be in congested town centres though, where an alternative route would be difficult and expensive. Although I'm sure Offord and neighbouring crossings have their fair share of idiots trying to beat the barriers, I doubt there are many problems with traffic flow or queues extending over the crossing.

 

[GB]

Given the small number of SPADs these days and the presence of TPWS, the chances of a SPAD causing a train to hit a vehicle stopped on a crossing are vanishingly remote.

I agree the risk at full barrier crossings is minimal, but it should be noted that TPWS is not generally used to protect level crossings. Level crossings are not considered obstructions as far as signalling is concerned which is why there are are examples of level crossings (including full barrier/gated) within the 200yd overlap of its protecting signal as well as very few that are TPWS equipped.

 

[edwin_m]

I agree the risk at full barrier crossings is minimal, but it should be noted that TPWS is not generally used to protect level crossings. Level crossings are not considered obstructions as far as signalling is concerned which is why there are are examples of level crossings (including full barrier/gated) within the 200yd overlap of its protecting signal as well as very few that are TPWS equipped.

Which I suppose goes to show that the risk of a SPAD hitting a road vehicle is so low that it doesn't justify the spending of a few tens of thousands on TPWS at the protecting signals.

 

[jopsuk]

I releaise that I missed something from my list of non-safety benefits of crossing removal- more line capacity.

 

[The Planner]

Unless it is a crossing that requires a reduced speed such as an open or AOCL crossing that shouldnt neccesarily be the case.

 

[jopsuk]

Presumably though there's an ideal "barriers down for no more than x minutes per hour" target?

 

[Starmill]

Grade-separating some level crossings would be very difficult and expensive indeed, but could have significant benefits for the Railway (e.g. Deansgate Jn (MCB) and Navigation Road (CCTV) near Navigation Road, Greater Manchester) or for the vehicles or pedestrians on the road (e.g. Lincoln High St (CCTV)).

 

[Tomnick]

Presumably though there's an ideal "barriers down for no more than x minutes per hour" target?

Certainly not from the point of view of planning (as far as I'm aware) or operating trains, though it's sometimes raised as an issue at a more strategic level when additional or diverted services are being discussed.

 

[The Planner]

No interest in it as far as planning, if I can fit a train down there it is going on the graph regardless of the LC.

 

[edwin_m]

Longer road crossing times increase pressure for the crossing to be replaced. I was involved in a job where the times at a particular crossing would have increased but the local council specifically didn't want it replacing by a bridge because they really wanted a bypass and getting rid of the crossing would would remove one of the reasons.

 

[jopsuk]

talking of bypasses to replace crossings- will the Ely southern bypass mean the closure of the level crossing at the station? One of the main reasons for it being built is to take the lorry traffic off the road through town. It would make being sat drinking a pint by the river more pleasant if the crossing alarm wasn't going off every few minutes!

 

[balne-wonderer]

Heck Ings was recently closed to most traffic although I could still ride my bike over it the last time I went out.

It was however on an incredibly quiet road and as far as I'm aware had a good safety record.

I just wonder if NR is going for these easy picks for good PR. Heck Ings was a pretty poinless closure really

 

[High Dyke]

Cardells User Crossing has been closed just south of Offord. It's just not very clear in the newspaper report which crossing they are referring to. Offord CCTV crossing is still open.

Network Rail have confirmed it is Cardells Crossing that has closed. As agreement couldn't be reached with a 3rd party landowner no replacement bridge has been built. However access rights via a cattle creep have been agreed, subject to a compensation payout to users for the changes.

Yes, I realise that bridges are expensive and can be complex but keeping Level Crossings on the rail equivalent of the M1 just seems to be asking for trouble.

I agree. The fact that Cardells, like a number of other crossings on the ECML are of the User-worked type. (Cardells was fitted with Red/Green warning lights and telephone) staggers me. The manned crossings such as Woodcroft, Grassthorpe to name but two rely on the crossing keeper being granted a key release, in conjunction with signal protection, to open the gates to road traffic; however there are still examples similar to Cardells that exist.

No interest in it as far as planning, if I can fit a train down there it is going on the graph regardless of the LC.

Which probably explains why one particular level crossing on the ECML is sometimes blocked by trains recessed in a loop for longer than the permitted 15 minutes. Noted one booked in the other Saturday for 45 minutes. No wonder signallers get frustrated by such plans, and abuse from the public - or worse still crossing misuse. :roll:

 

[edwin_m]

Heck Ings was recently closed to most traffic although I could still ride my bike over it the last time I went out.

It was however on an incredibly quiet road and as far as I'm aware had a good safety record.

I just wonder if NR is going for these easy picks for good PR. Heck Ings was a pretty poinless closure really

Crossings on quiet roads are inevitably going to be easier to close because fewer people are affected. There is still a potential safety benefit as there can still be serious accidents on this sort of crossing. I agree the likelihood of an accident on a specific crossing is quite low but nobody can tell where the next one will be.

Busier roads will need bridges building, or a lot more effort to get everyone to agree to a diversion. So Network Rail is probably working on closing some of these too, but it will take a lot longer to get results

 

[Bald Rick]

talking of bypasses to replace crossings- will the Ely southern bypass mean the closure of the level crossing at the station? One of the main reasons for it being built is to take the lorry traffic off the road through town. It would make being sat drinking a pint by the river more pleasant if the crossing alarm wasn't going off every few minutes!

Yes..