I suspect they are perfectly safe, but costly in that they require staffing.
Safe from a signal interlocking point of view yes I agree, and in the sense that the operator using a wheel doesn't have to venture out into the traffic to close the gates (unless there's a problem with the mechanism). The lack of visible road signals means the gates are less protected from road vehicle damage than with a modern design however. It's possible road signals could be introduced whilst retaining the gates but NR probably don't have the legal powers ready to do that now. They will already have a new level crossing order in hand for the full conversion however but that seems now to be contingent on local planning approval to remove the old crossing.
Absolutely. Let's not pretend this is about anything but money.
One man supervising one crossing and no other equipment is extraordinarily inefficient today and it's a position that has to be covered through staff sickness and holidays etc. With all other remaining signalling positions in the area transferring to Three Bridges, covering this one remaining local post could become increasingly difficult.
The cost and difficulty of retaining spares and specialist skills become increasingly disproportionate as the quantity of the old equipment decreases. Mechanical signalling is finally almost gone in East Sussex. How long is it practical to retain just one installation of that vintage in the area, relying on a dwindling pool of experts nationally, called in over increasing distances for various testing, servicing and overhaul jobs?
I love the look of mechanical signalling and have always been fascinated by its development in response to previous accidents. The time of levers, semaphores and crossing gate wheels has passed on the national network, however. Whilst the old equipment at Plumpton is perfectly safe if used and maintained properly, it's the increasing practical difficulty of that proper support regime that is my major concern. That difficulty could lead to reliability and even safety risks arising, and inevitably higher costs as management try to mitigate these. It's like having one obsolete machine on an otherwise state of the art production line. The costs and plans for its replacement are all agreed but for some inexplicable reason the job never gets done. Engineers will be worrying about when that one-off hand forged special part is going to be replaced soon in the spares store after they had to use the last one, and if old Bert will be able to get there from miles away to install it, especially since his well-trained apprentice has just left to get some more up to date technical experience!
There's nothing wrong with joint efforts with heritage railways to allow through running using carefully designed interfaces between the new and old-style equipment. The idea there is to keep the interface as simple as possible with just a cooperative lever or token release for the route across the boundary. The NR side must not take on any heritage maintenance outside its normal competencies, and normal NR operations must not (reasonably) be affected by any likely fault on the heritage side.
Back at Plumpton, blue sky thinking. Perhaps a modern remote controlled incarnation of the gate system could be investigated if booms were considered an eyesore, a new swinging gate actuator or the telescopic sliding gate idea mooted for Redcar. Whatever the barrier solution, road signals are inevitable as is remote or automated operation. Perhaps a new use could be found for the redundant signalbox in situ, but it's really too close to the operational line (only 2m from nearest rail) so there would be difficulties with future maintenance and risks opening windows etc. It could be re-erected at a heritage railway somewhere else entirely or perhaps the wooden top and roof could be lifted over onto a new replica brick base built just a few metres further back to keep the general appearance similar from the point of view of the whole station complex and road approach. Land availablilty would be an issue, and who would pay for the rebuild.
