Plumpton Level Crossing wheel-operated gates to be retained

[Townsend Hook]

Yabbadabba, you seem to be the voice of reason. In answer to your question, I want the right solution, based on fact and that also follows due process. If someone makes an overwhelming argument that a gated crossing is impossible (not necessarily a like for like replacement) and that barriers are in the greater public interest I will fully accept that.
Now, back to these 'Stowmarket Controls' my quick calculation says that if the red like sequence is triggered 125 metres from the crossing, a train travelling at 90 mph would reach the crossing in less than 3 seconds which gives motorists no time at all to react. How can that be safe?

It is highly unlikely that a train would reach that point 125m before the crossing at 90mph, due the electronic safety systems in place. The TPWS (Train Protection & Warning System) sensors would detect an overspeed and trigger an emergency brake application. The driver would have also had to ignore the preceding caution signal, which he/she has to acknowledge by pressing a button to reset the AWS (Automatic Warning System), otherwise an emergency brake application will occur. Stowmarket control is basically there for when a train already slowing for the signal is going to miss it because the driver has mistimed the brake application for whatever reason, and so the train won't be travelling anywhere near linespeed. No level crossing can be totally safe (which is why NR aims to close as many as possible), but for an occurrence as you describe to take place there would have to be a phenomenally unlikely breakdown in multiple human and electronic safety systems.

 

[Rooky]

But trains do go through red lights, don't they?
Is this 'Stowmarket Control' compliant with Standards?

 

[Llanigraham]

My point is, Network Rail has either been very naive in its approach or very devious. The more I hear on here, I tend to think it was devious. The Railway Heritage letter was drafted at the request of Network Rail - why doesn't it stick to facts that are relevant? What is the purpose of providing misinformation?
In another post, in another post someone refers to the unsuitability of gates on busy roads. Plumpton Lane is not busy and neither is the railway line that runs through it with just 4 trains per hour max! All Network Rail had to do was present an honest case and it would have 'sailed' through.

NR produced all the FACTS to your County Council who recommended approval for the removal of the gates, their donation to a heritage railway, and their replacement with modern and SAFE barriers.
Your Town Council refused to accept that recommendation on what appears to be uninformed and inaccurate advise from ill-informed people.
The only "devious" actions I see are from those that ignored the CC advice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But trains do go through red lights, don't they?
Is this 'Stowmarket Control' compliant with Standards?

Rarely!!
Do you think that the ORR, RAIB and NR would allow something that is not compliant? Sorry but that is the most stupid question so far!!

 

[Rooky]

Llanigraham, yes I may be dim, so can you explain what a deviation from a Railway Group Standard means please?

 

[scotsman]

Llanigraham, yes I may be dim, so can you explain what a deviation from a Railway Group Standard means please?

It means that - to ensure the saftey of everyone on or around the railway - there are set standards, called Railway Group Standards.

These cover everything, from the size of speed limit signs, to the type of torches carried by train guards. They also cover what is acceptable - in the 21st century - to be used in the construction and operation of level crossing.

ie. The type of siren and the minimum noise level, the brightness of the lights, the type of road surface, and what - most importantly - constitutes a safe barrier.

You can find them if you search 'RGS Online' and you'll notice that, these days, a safe road level crossing will almost always have lights, sirens and boom gates. They are not optional extras, and safety will always trump aesthetics.

 

[Rooky]

scotsman, yes, I see the Railway has a huge amount of Standards and understandably so. However, I asked what a deviation from a Group Standard means?

 

[scotsman]

scotsman, yes, I see the Railway has a huge amount of Standards and understandably so. However, I asked what a deviation from a Group Standard means?

A deviation would be something that does not comply with the guidelines I just mentioned. For example, a red sign that should be blue, a guard not following the rules when dispatching their train, or a victorian level crossing that's falling apart being reinstated.

 

[DarloRich]

lots of fishing and digging about going on here...................

 

[Rooky]

Merely inquisitive - I am an engineer and like to understand things. I have worked out that the protecting signal cannot be located in the correct place (well it can, but NR can save circa £400k by not doing so) and therefore NR have sought a deviation from the relevant standard. The bit that worries me is that NR say 'provision of Stowmarket Control as part of the project will further enhance the safety of crossing users'. Surely, it would be better to protect the crossing with signals that do comply?

 

[infobleep]

lots of fishing and digging about going on here...................

Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

If someone was asking to strengthen a case it wouldn't matter what they were told as long as the right outcome is achieved by those who have the final say in the end.

 

[Yabbadabba]

Merely inquisitive - I am an engineer and like to understand things. I have worked out that the protecting signal cannot be located in the correct place (well it can, but NR can save circa £400k by not doing so) and therefore NR have sought a deviation from the relevant standard. The bit that worries me is that NR say 'provision of Stowmarket Control as part of the project will further enhance the safety of crossing users'. Surely, it would be better to protect the crossing with signals that do comply?

Or it could be equally unsafe to place the signal on the approach to the station and have a failed train in the signal section ahead, where by you end up holding the next outside a station for a prolonged time. And we know passengers do have a habit of pulling the egress handles and going trackside to walk the 200yards or so to get to the station. Maybe a 1 in a million chance of it happening in the same way that stowmarket protects a crossing from a slowish sped slide. Which risk is the greater?

 

[Rooky]

In my 'Black and White' world I find it odd that a deviation from a prescribed standard can be portrayed as a benefit?
Yabbadabba, in the London bound direction, the new signal is approximately 150 metres (my estimate) before the platform. Should I be worried about a train being held there and passengers disembarking? (Barrier failure? Passenger taken ill on train in platform etc)

 

[Yabbadabba]

In my 'Black and White' world I find it odd that a deviation from a prescribed standard can be portrayed as a benefit?
Yabbadabba, in the London bound direction, the new signal is approximately 150 metres (my estimate) before the platform. Should I be worried about a train being held there and passengers disembarking? (Barrier failure? Passenger taken ill on train in platform etc)

Cooksbridge is a good place to hold a train back, it has a nice platform.

 

[DarloRich]

Merely inquisitive - I am an engineer and like to understand things. I have worked out that the protecting signal cannot be located in the correct place (well it can, but NR can save circa £400k by not doing so) and therefore NR have sought a deviation from the relevant standard. The bit that worries me is that NR say 'provision of Stowmarket Control as part of the project will further enhance the safety of crossing users'. Surely, it would be better to protect the crossing with signals that do comply?

my view is that you are digging about for an opportunity to cause trouble and justify the decision of the local town council to preserve knackered old gates based on aesthetics.

 

[Llanigraham]

Being an "engineer" proves nothing, sorry. My garage calls it's mechanics "Service Engineers" as does British Gas for the man who services my central heating.
Now if you said you were a Signalling Engineer, or any Engineer on the railway, that might be a different matter.
You do seem to be allowing your "hatred" of any change at Plumpton to cloud your judgement.

 

[OxtedL]

I don't reckon that ganging up on Rooky and accusing them of all manner of things really achieves anything other than potentially making you look a bit paranoid. They've been largely asking gentle questions and being non-aggressive.

Network Rail's case for new barriers seems to pin itself on two main things:
1) The old gates and associated equipment were at the end of their useful life and needed replacing
2) Replacing requires something safer and more reliable, which when considering the amount of money (and I suspect also time) available means something off the shelf, so barriers were selected as the best (only) option

Point (2) and its relationship with some interpretation of the phrase "in keeping with the signalbox" are open to quite a lot of debate: how much money is it reasonable to spend and whether there are even possible alternatives that fit the brief of 'safe' and 'reliable'. To understand the debate requires a fair bit of explanation of technical terms so a lot of questions.

Whilst the almost inevitable consequence of this looks to be barriers at the crossing, as e.g. the residents of Frinton-on-Sea found in 2009, I don't think trying to dismiss the debate out of hand is the right way to go on this thread.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't reckon that ganging up on Rooky and accusing them of all manner of things really achieves anything other than potentially making you look a bit paranoid. They've been largely asking gentle questions and being non-aggressive.

A lot of you are very trusting and keen to please. I , on the other hand, am an embittered cynical chap who thinks everyone is working an angle to their advantage.

If you want information for a particular reason just be honest and say that is what you want. Don't dress it up or try to hide the fact. The witness is being led here.

Whilst the almost inevitable consequence of this looks to be barriers at the crossing, as e.g. the residents of Frinton-on-Sea found in 2009, I don't think trying to dismiss the debate out of hand is the right way to go on this thread.

The debate is a pointless waste of time and just shows up what we in England excel at: Silly old duffers nimbying themselves crazy.

BTW that article you refer to is an utter joke. Railway is always done at night. It is the only time you can get decent track access!

 

[Rooky]

I have learned some facts that could make useful headlines for the 'anti brigade' e.g 'Trains can pass through crossing with barriers raised', "Network Rail has non standard signal protecting crossing', 'Passengers can alight while train held at signal' etc. None of these statements would be factually untrue.The question would then be asked, 'why didn't Network Rail make such information available'?
Similarly, people may also ask, 'why did Network Rail get the Railway Heritage Trust to write a letter that contained unnecessary and therefore, misleading information'?
As for me, I just want the right solution. By this I mean a solution that is in the greater public interest. In order to achieve that, both sides need to sit down and engage in proper consultation and debate. The Railway isn't there solely for the benefit of those who work on it, but conversely, the local community need to accept technological progress and the benefits it brings.
Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the peace and quiet of a traffic free lane that is getting deeper in leaves every day.

 

[DarloRich]

As for me, I just want the right solution. By this I mean a solution that is in the greater public interest. In order to achieve that, both sides need to sit down and engage in proper consultation and debate. The Railway isn't there solely for the benefit of those who work on it, but conversely, the local community need to accept technological progress and the benefits it brings.
Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the peace and quiet of a traffic free lane that is getting deeper in leaves every day.

The answer is to install proper modern gates. They are safer for everyone. I agree they don't look nice but considering all the flak NR have had over crossing (miss)use is it any wonder they want things modernising? With respect the solution is whatever is within NR's interest. They have the duty to protect the crossing and the users of the crossing.


As for the other statements context is all important. Simply reporting "facts" is unhelpful without the wider contextualisation of the issues or situation. My point is that too often people are simply after something to use for their own purposes or agenda. Look at the Frinton article linked above.

 

[Chrisgr31]

The railway people on this thread are very good at saying barriers are safer than gates and the reasons in part for this appear to be because the barriers are automatically controlled and have lights.

It seems that gates cant have lights because they are not approved. The solution therefore is to explain why it is not possible to get lights approved and why gates cannot be automated.

Cost is undoubted a factor but of course if gates with lights were typed approved for Plumpton then they would be type approved for use elsewhere which potentially would save money on other battles.

The Office of Rail Responsibility state "ORR wants the rail industry to close level crossings, but where this is impracticable is pushing the industry to deliver innovative solutions such as implementing new technology to make crossings safe." http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...esearch/infrastructure-safety/level-crossings so they would seem to support the idea of investigating alternatives and here we have the opportunity to do just that.

The other thing we have to remember is that Network Rail went ahead and commenced the work before they were given consent. Everyone knows, especially those that are professionals in planning, that you cannot assume that local councillors will follow an officers recommendation particularly in a case like this where the Officers report was hardly enthusiastic in its recommendation.

If this was a developer building next door to any of us we would undoubtedly be up in arms about them going ahead without the relevant planning consents.

I dont know the crossing at Plumpton but at the same time I have seen no evidence that automatic barriers are any safe than automatic gates, although this appears to be because we haven't had any of the latter.

 

[DarloRich]

The railway people on this thread are very good at saying barriers are safer than gates and the reasons in part for this appear to be because the barriers are automatically controlled and have lights.

It seems that gates cant have lights because they are not approved. The solution therefore is to explain why it is not possible to get lights approved and why gates cannot be automated.

Cost is undoubted a factor but of course if gates with lights were typed approved for Plumpton then they would be type approved for use elsewhere which potentially would save money on other battles.

The Office of Rail Responsibility state "ORR wants the rail industry to close level crossings, but where this is impracticable is pushing the industry to deliver innovative solutions such as implementing new technology to make crossings safe." http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...esearch/infrastructure-safety/level-crossings so they would seem to support the idea of investigating alternatives and here we have the opportunity to do just that.

The other thing we have to remember is that Network Rail went ahead and commenced the work before they were given consent. Everyone knows, especially those that are professionals in planning, that you cannot assume that local councillors will follow an officers recommendation particularly in a case like this where the Officers report was hardly enthusiastic in its recommendation.

If this was a developer building next door to any of us we would undoubtedly be up in arms about them going ahead without the relevant planning consents.

I dont know the crossing at Plumpton but at the same time I have seen no evidence that automatic barriers are any safe than automatic gates, although this appears to be because we haven't had any of the latter.

:roll: product approval for a bespoke solution? That should be available just before the next ice age. Impractical and shows you have little understanding of how products for railway use are developed and tested. Sorry. That is before we consider the legal aspect of the proposed changes.

 

[MarkyT]

In Plumpton's case (if Stowmarket control is necessary), the proximity of the station platform probably precludes moving the signal back far enough - although there are a whole load of other factors too, including braking distance from the signal in rear, sighting and much more besides.

Yes and the main one is that if the train stops at Plumpton for longer than expected the route over the crossing can be cancelled, the approach locking will time out and the crossing can reopen to road traffic again whilst the problem with the train is sorted out. Some cut-price schemes a decade or so ago pushed the protecting signals out to the approach side of the platform, allowing a full overlap clear of the crossing, but meaning if the train was stuck in the platform the crossing would be route locked and could not be opened again by the operator until either the train could successfully pass over it or a local technician or operator arrived to give a special release. With a fairly short dwell time at Plumpton, the warning sequence would normally begin well before the down train arrives at the station, so the Stowmarket controls are there to cover a scenario where a train is not stopping correctly at the protecting signal and is going to overrun, and ensures a minimum duration warning signal is given to road traffic and that the barriers are automatically lowered. Crossings open to road traffic do not have to represent a blockage to an overlap, but each crossing is risk assessed in this respect, so busy fast railways like the Eastbourne line merit special measures like the Stowmarket controls without a necessity to lock the crossing before allowing the train to pass the previous signal, which would lead to the road being closed for even longer for each train. A protecting signal can normally be placed as close as 50m from a crossing, but that can be reduced further to 25m in the case of a station platform.

 

[Rooky]

DarloRich, are you now suggesting it is the railway that is stuck in a time warp?

 

[OxtedL]

BTW that article you refer to is an utter joke. Railway is always done at night. It is the only time you can get decent track access!

There is a lot about the Frinton story that is hilarious ("Paris has its Eiffel Tower, London has Tower Bridge and in Frinton we have the gates. All over the world people talk about them.")

If you like that sort of thing, you can read an account by an admittedly biased but definitely rather emotionally involved resident here: http://www.frintonresidents.co.uk/frinton-on-sea/linked documents/FRAGates Report.htm

They were under the impression that the gates would be removed 12 hours later and were annoyed that their final opportunity to protest disappeared.

I think you can actually see the barrier conversion in progress here on google streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/5VNTmHt2oFU2, and the line was definitely closed to trains for the whole day while they did it. Unnecessarily keeping the gates there for another 12 hours while they weren't running any trains seems extremely far fetched - but on the other hand, retiming the work to avoid angry residents has a pleasant ring to it...

 

[cjmillsnun]

Of course nothing will happen to the councilors. I doubt they one will tell them off. If it was a member of staff however who got to wrong....... Or am I being to cynical?

Nothing will happen to the councillors, however the council can be fined, and we're talking tens of thousands of pounds.

That can cause cuts to services.

 

[OxtedL]

I have learned some facts that could make useful headlines for the 'anti brigade' e.g 'Trains can pass through crossing with barriers raised', "Network Rail has non standard signal protecting crossing', 'Passengers can alight while train held at signal' etc. None of these statements would be factually untrue.

May I ask a)Why you think that first one is true, and b&c)Why you think the second and third ones are a problem? The third one in particular doesn't look like an issue for anybody.

 

[Llanigraham]

The railway people on this thread are very good at saying barriers are safer than gates and the reasons in part for this appear to be because the barriers are automatically controlled and have lights. (1)

It seems that gates cant have lights because they are not approved. The solution therefore is to explain why it is not possible to get lights approved and why gates cannot be automated. (2)

Cost is undoubted a factor but of course if gates with lights were typed approved for Plumpton then they would be type approved for use elsewhere which potentially would save money on other battles.

The Office of Rail Responsibility state "ORR wants the rail industry to close level crossings, but where this is impracticable is pushing the industry to deliver innovative solutions such as implementing new technology to make crossings safe." http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-r...esearch/infrastructure-safety/level-crossings so they would seem to support the idea of investigating alternatives and here we have the opportunity to do just that.

The other thing we have to remember is that Network Rail went ahead and commenced the work before they were given consent. Everyone knows, especially those that are professionals in planning, that you cannot assume that local councillors will follow an officers recommendation particularly in a case like this where the Officers report was hardly enthusiastic in its recommendation.

If this was a developer building next door to any of us we would undoubtedly be up in arms about them going ahead without the relevant planning consents.

I dont know the crossing at Plumpton but at the same time I have seen no evidence that automatic barriers are any safe than automatic gates, although this appears to be because we haven't had any of the latter. (3)

(1) Not all barriered crossings are automatic! The only automatic ones are the half barriered type. If there are full barriers then they are either operated directly by a signaller using Mk1 eyeballs, CCTV or by Obstruction Detection.

(2) At great expense and probably also needing a long delay whilst all the bodies need to get agreement between themselves. May also require Parliamentary consideration.

(3) There are no automatic gates as they do not fit in with current legislation.

 

[DarloRich]

DarloRich, are you now suggesting it is the railway that is stuck in a time warp?

sorry?

 

[cjmillsnun]

The railway people on this thread are very good at saying barriers are safer than gates and the reasons in part for this appear to be because the barriers are automatically controlled and have lights.

It seems that gates cant have lights because they are not approved. The solution therefore is to explain why it is not possible to get lights approved and why gates cannot be automated.

There are two reasons.

1. Standardisation. A standard solution means that a fix to a failure can be implemented quickly. On a level crossing this is important as it either affects the passage of road vehicles or trains. The number of gated crossings left are small, they are generally spread out. This means that even if a solution is found, it is likely that very few or maybe only one crossing in an area uses that solution compared to the common standard. It's effectively bespoke. Meaning parts will be scarce and have to be manufactured. This will impact downtime.

2. Cost
Cost is undoubted a factor but of course if gates with lights were typed approved for Plumpton then they would be type approved for use elsewhere which potentially would save money on other battles.

Cost is a factor because the numbers of these crossings are small, so there are few or no economies of scale.

 

[Tomnick]

"Network Rail has non standard signal protecting crossing'

I don't think that's true. Apart from the fact that most standards aren't retrospective (so changes to such standards don't have to be reflected in existing installations), the design standards do allow protecting signals to be located closer to crossings than the ideal minimum, with varying degrees of mitigation. Stowmarket Control isn't some sort of non-compliant bodge job, it's a relatively new control to provide additional mitigation in some of those cases - I suppose, in a roundabout way, it's an example of a new standard that is being applied retrospectively