Plumpton Level Crossing wheel-operated gates to be retained

[infobleep]

Aforementioned letter attached

View attachment 24258

How much would a taxi account cost Network Rail? In fact any one care to speculate how much this delay might cost Network Rail?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They need permission to change the environment in the immediate vicinity of the signal box, which is listed.

I would if Network Rail hadn't started the work in advance, would the committee have looked for favourably on them? In other words perhaps they didn't like Network Rail assuming the out come and starting work, regardless of what the officers said was likely.

Or am I reading to much into it and no matter what happened, Network Rail would have lost.

Of course if Network Rail hadn't started the works, they might never have known how unsafe the crossing gates were and they would have continued to be used.

 

[Rooky]

HowardGWR - I think I am right in saying the submission wasn't made by Network Rail until June 2015. It all seems to have been done on a 'just in time' basis. Leaving it so late, with no proper engagement beforehand was a deliberate ploy?
infobleep - I believe that if Network Rail had submitted an honest assessment the outcome would have been different. The planning authority got tough when Network Rail flooded the site with workers and carried on working until the court order was served.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

HowardGWR - I think I am right in saying the submission wasn't made by Network Rail until June 2015. It all seems to have been done on a 'just in time' basis. Leaving it so late, with no proper engagement beforehand was a deliberate ploy?
infobleep - I believe that if Network Rail had submitted an honest assessment the outcome would have been different. The planning authority got tough when Network Rail flooded the site with workers and carried on working until the court order was served.

It's not nearly as simple as that - Network Rail have extensive legal powers to build, maintain and operate the railway, they have the legal right to remove level crossings, barriers, signal boxes, stations and to erect fences, masts, signals, electrification, to rebuild bridges and do many other things without having to seek planning permission.

The process is known as permitted development - Network Rail tell the local authority what they will be doing and under what legislation it will be carried out, the local authority can only intervene if they feel Network Rail is in error and that they're doing something that isn't covered by the railway related legislation.

In this case, Network Rail have the legal powers necessary to remove the level crossing gates and to install new gates without having to do anything other than informing the local authority they will be doing something under their permitted development powers. Where it becomes much more complicated is where Network Rail's powers conflict with that of the local authority, in the area around listed buildings. The powers NR has and which the original railway company had didn't anticipate railway buildings being listed.

To be quite clear, Network Rail do not need permission to replace the gates, they need permission to change the environment around the signal box, if they can install a set of gates which doesn't change the environment, or the local authority finally accept that a modern set of barriers does not look out of place, they'll get the permission they need to make the necessary changes. They can of course appeal and make the case that it doesn't matter that the environment around the signal box has changed, this has happened throughout the history of the railway, just look at the trains which go past it, if LBC were being especially pedantic, they would insist on steam trains going past the box to maintain the environment.

Network Rail could, if they were really being quite legalistic about this, have obtained their own injunction which would have prevented Lewes Borough Council from seeking an injunction, though this is quite a complicated legal process.

What will happen now, unfortunately for Lewes residents, is that your local MP will be informed by the Transport Secretary to explain the case for the level crossing being replaced, and that the local authority will be told in no uncertain terms they'll be looked at unfavourably in future budgeting cuts and funding rounds if they don't stop being awkward.

Or Network Rail will win on appeal - there's hundreds of boxes up and down the country which are listed, and which have been demolished, moved or have had their crossings and environment changed. LBC isn't going to avoid what's coming, it's putting off the inevitable.

 

[Rooky]

Yes, it is highly likely that Network Rail will achieve a new crossing. Is it significant that they are submitting a new application as well as an appeal? The point is, if Network Rail had complied with due process none of this would have 'kicked off' like it has.
On a positive note, the 4x4s have gone now and Network Rail are being far more concilitary.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Yes, it is highly likely that Network Rail will achieve a new crossing. Is it significant that they are submitting a new application as well as an appeal? The point is, if Network Rail had complied with due process none of this would have 'kicked off' like it has.
On a positive note, the 4x4s have gone now and Network Rail are being far more concilitary.

I don't know what's in the new application - it could be for the permanent closure of the crossing completely, which is Network Rail's fall back position if consent was refused (as it has been) for the replacement of the gates.

The appeal will be interesting, as the elected members have defied the advice of their planning officers, who have recommended the application be approved, which is why Network Rail began their works in the first place.

What has happened is the planning process in Lewes has been allowed to be contaminated with politics, when it's supposed to be an impartial and apolitical process. The appeal is, in my view, likely to be quite damning about Lewes Borough Council and the members of the planning committee, and probably a bit critical of Network Rail too.

 

[Rooky]

I understand the new application will contain a safety argument that proves the scheme is in the public interest. This will be sufficient to obtain consent. This is not a ppanning application, it is listed building consent and it has to be proven to be in the public interest. Believe me, Network Rail will have their 'A Team' working on this next one.

 

[Bald Rick]

Believe me, Network Rail will have their 'A Team' working on this next one.

It does.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I understand the new application will contain a safety argument that proves the scheme is in the public interest. This will be sufficient to obtain consent. This is not a ppanning application, it is listed building consent and it has to be proven to be in the public interest. Believe me, Network Rail will have their 'A Team' working on this next one.

The original application has an extensive safety assessment carried out by Atkins, but it was ignored by the planning committee. I don't know how likely it is that a second application will be approved given the council sought an injunction just this week. That's not the behaviour of an authority that is getting ready for an elegant about turn.

 

[Rooky]

No, the safety assessment by Atkins was fundamentally flawed, hence the rejection and the need for a new one. If it was adequate why are Network Rail doing it again?

 

[Townsend Hook]

No, the safety assessment by Atkins was fundamentally flawed, hence the rejection and the need for a new one. If it was adequate why are Network Rail doing it again?

Because the councillors rejected it the first time around. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the document's validity.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No, the safety assessment by Atkins was fundamentally flawed, hence the rejection and the need for a new one. If it was adequate why are Network Rail doing it again?

If the risk assessment conducted by Atkins was fundamentally flawed as you allege, why did the planning officer accept it as valid and accordingly recommend listed building consent for the application be approved ?

What do the councillors of Lewes Borough Council know about the risk assessment of level crossings that their qualified planning officer and indeed the experts at Atkins don't know ?

 

[Rooky]

Ok, lets try this. Which type of crossing is going to be subject to the most 'red light running' - barriers or gated?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ok lets try this. Which crossing (barrier or gated) is likely to have the higher likelyhood of red light running?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Ok, lets try this. Which type of crossing is going to be subject to the most 'red light running' - barriers or gated?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ok lets try this. Which crossing (barrier or gated) is likely to have the higher likelyhood of red light running?

Gated crossings (such as Plumpton) don't have red lights, but what you've admitted to is that the motorists in Lewes cannot be trusted to correctly adhere to the Road Traffic Act.

If that's the case, I would then suggest Network Rail should be looking to completely eliminate the road/rail interface by closing the crossing entirely.

I'm a pedant, so I would ask the question, bearing in my you've said the motorists of Lewes can't be trusted to drive safely and adhere to the red lights of an automatic or remote controlled barrier, whether it's safe for a crossing attendant to have to manually close or control the barriers. That's in addition to the risks of having the attendant do his work in the dark, in poor weather conditions, where even the safest driver could have an accident and hit the crossing attendant.

The answer to your strange question is it's that it's either safe for barriers to be employed because the motorists are safe and considerate, but that also means there's less risk to the crossing attendant, or it's not safe for barriers because the motorists are idiots, in which case it's not safe for any level crossing to exist.

In any case, it's safer to have a MCB-OD system here than a manually worked set of gates.

 

[Rooky]

Not a strange question at all - merely quoting an example of the folly of the risk assessment presented by Neteork Rail.

 

[infobleep]

If the risk assessment conducted by Atkins was fundamentally flawed as you allege, why did the planning officer accept it as valid and accordingly recommend listed building consent for the application be approved ?

What do the councillors of Lewes Borough Council know about the risk assessment of level crossings that their qualified planning officer and indeed the experts at Atkins don't know ?

Surely it doesn't matter what the Lewes councilors know above planning officers or Atkins. They have the power to say no. End of. They may eventually lose when cases go to appeal and so forth but at that point they can say no and it doesn't matter how much experience you have, there nothing you can do to stop them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Gated crossings (such as Plumpton) don't have red lights, but what you've admitted to is that the motorists in Lewes cannot be trusted to correctly adhere to the Road Traffic Act.

If that's the case, I would then suggest Network Rail should be looking to completely eliminate the road/rail interface by closing the crossing entirely.

I'm a pedant, so I would ask the question, bearing in my you've said the motorists of Lewes can't be trusted to drive safely and adhere to the red lights of an automatic or remote controlled barrier, whether it's safe for a crossing attendant to have to manually close or control the barriers. That's in addition to the risks of having the attendant do his work in the dark, in poor weather conditions, where even the safest driver could have an accident and hit the crossing attendant.

The answer to your strange question is it's that it's either safe for barriers to be employed because the motorists are safe and considerate, but that also means there's less risk to the crossing attendant, or it's not safe for barriers because the motorists are idiots, in which case it's not safe for any level crossing to exist.

In any case, it's safer to have a MCB-OD system here than a manually worked set of gates.

Perhaps the safest option is simply a road bridge. Is there the space? Lewes council could pay for it. That then enables this to be another level crossing closure, along with all the hundreds Network Rail highlight as having been closed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not nearly as simple as that - Network Rail have extensive legal powers to build, maintain and operate the railway, they have the legal right to remove level crossings, barriers, signal boxes, stations and to erect fences, masts, signals, electrification, to rebuild bridges and do many other things without having to seek planning permission.

The process is known as permitted development - Network Rail tell the local authority what they will be doing and under what legislation it will be carried out, the local authority can only intervene if they feel Network Rail is in error and that they're doing something that isn't covered by the railway related legislation.

In this case, Network Rail have the legal powers necessary to remove the level crossing gates and to install new gates without having to do anything other than informing the local authority they will be doing something under their permitted development powers. Where it becomes much more complicated is where Network Rail's powers conflict with that of the local authority, in the area around listed buildings. The powers NR has and which the original railway company had didn't anticipate railway buildings being listed.

To be quite clear, Network Rail do not need permission to replace the gates, they need permission to change the environment around the signal box, if they can install a set of gates which doesn't change the environment, or the local authority finally accept that a modern set of barriers does not look out of place, they'll get the permission they need to make the necessary changes. They can of course appeal and make the case that it doesn't matter that the environment around the signal box has changed, this has happened throughout the history of the railway, just look at the trains which go past it, if LBC were being especially pedantic, they would insist on steam trains going past the box to maintain the environment.

Network Rail could, if they were really being quite legalistic about this, have obtained their own injunction which would have prevented Lewes Borough Council from seeking an injunction, though this is quite a complicated legal process.

What will happen now, unfortunately for Lewes residents, is that your local MP will be informed by the Transport Secretary to explain the case for the level crossing being replaced, and that the local authority will be told in no uncertain terms they'll be looked at unfavourably in future budgeting cuts and funding rounds if they don't stop being awkward.

Or Network Rail will win on appeal - there's hundreds of boxes up and down the country which are listed, and which have been demolished, moved or have had their crossings and environment changed. LBC isn't going to avoid what's coming, it's putting off the inevitable.

The original railway companies didn't anticipate railway buildings being listed. Could they amend the laws so Network Rail have greater papers over listed structures?

Also what would happen if Lewes Council applied for only steam engines to go past the site. Of course I'd expect it to be turned down but I assume they could spend money on pursuing a request for this. Who would they apply to or would they simply put up a demand and it would be for Network Rail and Southern to appeal such a demand?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because the councillors rejected it the first time around. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the document's validity.

Did the councilors comment on the documents validly first time or simply reject it due to heritage being closed?

Do the council record their meetings and make them publicly available? I know some councils do. I work for one that does just that.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The original railway companies didn't anticipate railway buildings being listed. Could they amend the laws so Network Rail have greater papers over listed structures?

I'd give a Railway Heritage Authority full control over all listed buildings connected with the operational railway, and take the decision making process out of the hands of the local authority.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did the councilors comment on the documents validly first time or simply reject it due to heritage being closed?

Do the council record their meetings and make them publicly available? I know some councils do. I work for one that does just that.

The minutes of the meeting are available on the council's website (I've quoted a couple of extracts from the minutes and the planning officer's report, below. See http://lewes.cmis.uk.com/cmis5/Meet...id/505/Meeting/603/Committee/189/Default.aspx)

There's no minuted evidence to show the council have disagreed with the safety assessment provided by Atkins, the minutes show it wasn't considered at all, which is partially why NR is appealing. There's a clear demonstration that the planning application was not correctly considered by the council - they cannot just go around refusing permission for things that they do not like, they are supposed to hear arguments and make decisions in a neutral, apolitical, unbiased manner, which clearly did not happen here.

It is considered that the applicant has failed to show clear, convincing and robust evidence to demonstrate that the substantial harm to the significance of the signal box and the loss of the gates is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that would outweigh that harm and loss of the gates and therefore is contrary to Paragraphs 132 and 133 of the NPPF.

The loss of the gates and the introduction of the proposed modern replacements will have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the listed signal box and main station building, contrary to Policy H2 of the Lewes District Local Plan and Core Policy 11 of the Lewes District Joint Core Strategy.

The planning officer's conclusion is contrary to the conclusion reached by the planning committee.

The loss of the gates will have an irreversible impact on the historic character of this crossing and its setting and, as stated earlier, Para 133 of the NPPF states that the loss of a heritage asset is only considered acceptable if the benefit to the public outweighs that loss. However, the existing gates have a long record of breakdowns, and Network Rail are unwilling to fund the bespoke manufacture of the parts necessary to ensure the future safe and reliable operation of the gates, intending to close the crossing if it is declared unsafe. The replacement of the gates with a modern MCB-OD barrier system will provide a crossing that is functionally reliable, therefore reducing the likelihood of incidents/accidents arising from the failure of the crossing. This reliability will benefit all crossing users and Network Rail employees alike. The existing crossing gates will be donated to the East Kent Railway to be restored by apprentices, and allow the extension of their heritage rail network, again providing benefit for the wider public. It is acknowledged that the crossing gates and signal box are an integral part of the character of Plumpton village, but the benefit to road and rail users from the upgrading of the crossing is considered to outweigh the safety benefits of the status quo, and it is recommended that, on balance, listed building consent be granted.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ok, lets try this. Which type of crossing is going to be subject to the most 'red light running' - barriers or gated?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ok lets try this. Which crossing (barrier or gated) is likely to have the higher likelyhood of red light running?

In my experience (of managing crossing keepers and level crossing risk) the incidence of 'red light running' is no different between gated crossings and barriers crossings, all else being broadly equal.

What is certainly higher risk for staff well being is gated crossings. I have had 2 crossing keepers hospitalised by errant motorists, another 2 in very near misses, several assaulted by passing pedestrians or waiting motorists as they close the gates, and a further two put the gates across approaching trains with rather drastic consequences for the future careers of the gates, the crossing keepers, and the train drivers' underwear.

None of this can happen with barriers.

 

[carriageline]

In my experience (of managing crossing keepers and level crossing risk) the incidence of 'red light running' is no different between gated crossings and barriers crossings, all else being broadly equal.



What is certainly higher risk for staff well being is gated crossings. I have had 2 crossing keepers hospitalised by errant motorists, another 2 in very near misses, several assaulted by passing pedestrians or waiting motorists as they close the gates, and a further two put the gates across approaching trains with rather drastic consequences for the future careers of the gates, the crossing keepers, and the train drivers' underwear.



None of this can happen with barriers.

And plus, aren't OD barriers supposed to have "law enforcement" cameras on them? We was told all on the East Sussex have them.

 

[bengley]

And plus, aren't OD barriers supposed to have "law enforcement" cameras on them? We was told all on the East Sussex have them.

the ones at Polegate and Hampden Park definitely have ANPR cameras on the back of the wig wag heads on both sides of the road, so yes, I think they do!

 

[HowardGWR]

The planning officer's 'on balance' was the green light for the councillors to go AWOL It often is. I was a Councillor and that is how a Committee will interpret that phrase. They get very little leeway otherwise from officers. As you say @Philip, the appeal will almost certainly succeed because the Council has failed to disagree with the safety issue, which was the reason for the application, at least, as stated anyway.

 

[Llanigraham]

No, the safety assessment by Atkins was fundamentally flawed, hence the rejection and the need for a new one. If it was adequate why are Network Rail doing it again?

How do you know that it was "fundamentally flawed"?
Where does it say that was the reason your local (minor) Council rejected the Planning Application after it had been recommended for acceptance by the County Council? Are they better informed and more expert than the County Council?
Who says they are doing a new assessment?
Did you go to the public meeting?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not a strange question at all - merely quoting an example of the folly of the risk assessment presented by Neteork Rail.

In that case why are the majority of level crossings in this county barriered crossings?
If they are so unsafe, as you attest, who are they not banned?

I suggest, Sir, that you are allowing your views against the changes at Plumpton to cloud your judgement.

 

[Chrisgr31]

The planning officer's conclusion is contrary to the conclusion reached by the planning committee.

It was hardly a ringing endorsement though and in fact having read it I am not surprised the committee went against his recommendation. I remain confused though why its not possible to build an automatic crossing with replica gates rather than a barrier.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It was hardly a ringing endorsement though and in fact having read it I am not surprised the committee went against his recommendation. I remain confused though why its not possible to build an automatic crossing with replica gates rather than a barrier.

Because there isn't an interlocking mechanism for replica gates, and from what I've heard, designing an interlocking mechanism for gates, with the necessary fail safe (rather than fail dangerous) protection is very difficult.

And we want standardisation on the railway, not a myriad of *******ised systems that can't be fixed for weeks, we want barriers that when they break, which they do, because they're exposed to the elements and idiot motorists, are easily and quickly repaired.

It's one of the many things we're trying to achieve on the railway - men in vans, who carry around all the spare parts they need to fix things, and can fix things within a few minutes to a couple of hours of arriving on site. We want things on the railway, that if they fail during the morning peak, stand a good chance of being fixed for the evening peak, or even by the end of the morning peak, not in 3 months once spares have been manufactured by special order.

 

[HowardGWR]

How do you know that it was "fundamentally flawed"?
Where does it say that was the reason your local (minor) Council rejected the Planning Application after it had been recommended for acceptance by the County Council? Are they better informed and more expert than the County Council?

Just to correct the impression given there, if I may. The Council is not 'minor'. It is 'major'. It is the planning authority for listed building applications. In this case the County Council is a statutory consultee, as is the Parish Council and any other statutory consultees.

 

[infobleep]

I'd give a Railway Heritage Authority full control over all listed buildings connected with the operational railway, and take the decision making process out of the hands of the local authority.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The minutes of the meeting are available on the council's website (I've quoted a couple of extracts from the minutes and the planning officer's report, below. See http://lewes.cmis.uk.com/cmis5/Meet...id/505/Meeting/603/Committee/189/Default.aspx)

There's no minuted evidence to show the council have disagreed with the safety assessment provided by Atkins, the minutes show it wasn't considered at all, which is partially why NR is appealing. There's a clear demonstration that the planning application was not correctly considered by the council - they cannot just go around refusing permission for things that they do not like, they are supposed to hear arguments and make decisions in a neutral, apolitical, unbiased manner, which clearly did not happen here.



The planning officer's conclusion is contrary to the conclusion reached by the planning committee.

Politicians making a decision that isn't unbiased or apolitical must be a really hard thing to do. After all unless your an independent, you partly have to tow the party line.

It's not the first time or the last that a committee has disagreed with officers.

There is even the possibility that sometimes officers came to the wrong conclusion or the arguments were so close either way that councilors decide differently.

Where you work, you may not always agree with everything your colleagues say. Even lawyers don't always agree on legal points.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And plus, aren't OD barriers supposed to have "law enforcement" cameras on them? We was told all on the East Sussex have them.

All other arguments aside, there's nothing to stop wheel barriers having law enforcement cameras on them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do you know that it was "fundamentally flawed"?
Where does it say that was the reason your local (minor) Council rejected the Planning Application after it had been recommended for acceptance by the County Council? Are they better informed and more expert than the County Council?
Who says they are doing a new assessment?
Did you go to the public meeting?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


In that case why are the majority of level crossings in this county barriered crossings?
If they are so unsafe, as you attest, who are they not banned?

I suggest, Sir, that you are allowing your views against the changes at Plumpton to cloud your judgement.

Wasn't there concerns in the 1960s that barriered crossings were less safe?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because there isn't an interlocking mechanism for replica gates, and from what I've heard, designing an interlocking mechanism for gates, with the necessary fail safe (rather than fail dangerous) protection is very difficult.

And we want standardisation on the railway, not a myriad of *******ised systems that can't be fixed for weeks, we want barriers that when they break, which they do, because they're exposed to the elements and idiot motorists, are easily and quickly repaired.

It's one of the many things we're trying to achieve on the railway - men in vans, who carry around all the spare parts they need to fix things, and can fix things within a few minutes to a couple of hours of arriving on site. We want things on the railway, that if they fail during the morning peak, stand a good chance of being fixed for the evening peak, or even by the end of the morning peak, not in 3 months once spares have been manufactured by special order.

Well what about Redcar?

A longer delay in reopening might help in the long run - if the new sliding gate design they are designing for Redcar gets approval for general use. Presumably these gates will be compatible with OD operation, and can have any style of cosmetic front applied to the mechanical structure. Network Rail would then have modern operation, and the village doesn't have lifting barriers. I think there are other listed crossings on Network Rail?

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/novel-level-crossing-to-be-installed-at-west-dyke-road

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Well what about Redcar?

It's a totally a different crossing with different planning limitations. The local planning policies at Plumpton would require four gates with horizontal opening and closing, and built to the same overall design, if listed building consent was to be guaranteed of being granted, essentially, so nobody would be able to tell the crossing has changed.

The interlocking on Redcar's new barrier is simple too, and can possibly make use of existing components from the current barriers - it doesn't fold across the track, but will be a telescopic design, so there's not additional work needed to ensure the barrier can't be in a position where it triggers the interlocking to say it's clear of the railway line but in reality it's fouling the cess and can be caught by a passing train, also, for each pair of barriers, in addition to being clear of the railway line, it will need to be confirmed that they're neatly locked together in the middle so that nobody can pass through the middle of the barriers.

These are all issues which make the type of barrier used at Plumpton very difficult to design and certify - NR have said these types of barrier would likely require a derogation and that this could cause issues with ASLEF who could refuse to work over lines with barriers having derogation as part of existing agreements.

 

[Rooky]

OK, so let me ask what may be a daft question. Are barriers alone, safer than gates? Or is it all the 'bells and whistles' that go with barriers that make them safer?

 

[Bald Rick]

OK, so let me ask what may be a daft question. Are barriers alone, safer than gates? Or is it all the 'bells and whistles' that go with barriers that make them safer?

In terms of system safety, ie safety for everyone (road users, rail users, rail staff, public), yes barriers are safer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All other arguments aside, there's nothing to stop wheel barriers having law enforcement cameras on them.

I'm afraid there is. On a technical basis, the enforcement cameras work off the red light sequence. Often, gates don't have lights, and given that they are manually operated, well, it gets complicated.

And legally, there would have to be new home office regulations. The enforcement cameras on barrier end crossings have only recently been permitted to be used for prosecution, and it applies only to specific types of crossing.

 

[Chrisgr31]

In terms of system safety, ie safety for everyone (road users, rail users, rail staff, public), yes barriers are safer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm afraid there is. On a technical basis, the enforcement cameras work off the red light sequence. Often, gates don't have lights, and given that they are manually operated, well, it gets complicated.

And legally, there would have to be new home office regulations. The enforcement cameras on barrier end crossings have only recently been permitted to be used for prosecution, and it applies only to specific types of crossing.

Although presumably there is no reason as to why gates couldn't have lights added? Also not sure why gates cant be automatically operated, after all there are many properties out there with electrically operated gates and so the technology exists and it cannot be that difficult these days for a locking system on them to report it is locked correctly.

Mind you not sure what the fuss is about having been a regular user of the level crossing at Crawley and on many occasions watched someone vault the crossing and walk over the track!

 

[Rooky]

I am sure I have seen a gated crossing with flashing red lights somewhere. Also, I'm sure I have seen motorised gates? I still can't see what safety benefits, barriers alone would add. Are barriers not prone to quite regular vehicle damage?