Train collides with van on level crossing at Teynham, Kent, 23/10

[whhistle]

The big red sign that says "Stop. Always telephone before crossing with vehicles..." on the same post as a telephone, right next to the gate, is abundantly clear.

People don't read signs...
They have to be told these days.

On another note, the 395 looks almost green in that photo.
GWR anyone?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

An issue here may well be the punishing schedules given to drivers by some parcel delivery firms. If you've got loads of parcels to drop off, you've already taken one wrong address, and now you're at an unusual level crossing where you have to get out and press a button, I can see how one might overlook even the most obvious signage.

 

[Muzer]

People don't read signs...
They have to be told these days.

On another note, the 395 looks almost green in that photo.
GWR anyone?

He didn't read it because it was only one of a myriad of other signs at the location, and the important text wasn't even clear (to me it stands out less well than the numbered black on white list). While us nerds on this forum tend to go about reading every sign we see, not everyone does this.

 

[An_Engineer]

People don't read signs...
They have to be told these days

I've read the report and it's a bit more complicated than that. From how the crossing is described, including the pictures, I do not have confidence that I would definitely cross safely if I came across it for the first time. (I'd say 80% of the time I would probably be fine, but still decent chance of missing things.)

Apart from the authorized user issue mentioned by Muzer, the report covers how the signage is not adequate. As the report says, in the lead into the crossing there are 9 different signs of various sizes and in various locations, all giving separate and sometimes contradictory instructions.

Importantly, two of the signs give a numbered list of instructions. The initial requirement of calling the operator was not mentioned on either of these lists. Yes, the instruction to call the operator was mentioned on one of the signs, but only in a rather verbose piece of text (and completely omitted from the numbered instructions). So there was created a situation where there was an information overload, and the most critical piece of information needed was not presented clearly. The defense of "users should read the instructions properly" is a poor defense, as unless instructions are clear and concise people will miss things.

This adds to the error by the van driver of target fixation on the POGO buttons, with the erroneous assumption that the gate would not open if it was not in a safe state (and as we all know, assumptions are the mother of all eff ups). This was not a van driver who was being deliberately reckless.

 

[adamello]

Let us not also forget, that the leyman isn't necessarily a railway enthusiast / worker / person with knowledge.
we've all [road users] driven over some form of level crossing at somepoint, and they generally all have a big long instruction sign, and a big yellow telephone.. however these generally aren't used by normal drivers, so the question is, is it clear than these are different instructions to what he would be used to seeing, and that they apply in this case to him

 

[2HAP]

The issue is solvable. POGO gates only workable by a release from the signalbox. No phone call, gates stay shut.

 

[Ben.A.98]

The issue is solvable. POGO gates only workable by a release from the signalbox. No phone call, gates stay shut.

Easier to use and install would be to upgrade from phones to a MSL or EbiGate overlay.

 

[Bald Rick]

Even easier, and cheaper, would be to close it.

 

[snowball]

My first reaction on a quick skim read of the report is shock and horror that the Route level crossing team ever considered approving such an appalling dog's breakfast of signs.

Edit: reading a bit more, it seems that part of the problem is that some of the signs are prescribed by regulations, which date from before the invention of the POGO system.

But surely they ought to have designed decent signage by now and sought special authority for it?

Also there was delay in turning off the traction current after the incident.

 

[snowball]

Even easier, and cheaper, would be to close it.

Would apparently prevent access for some vehicles as the underpasses appear to be of limited headroom (designed as cattle creeps?). It's mentioned that lowering the road under the underpasses, or building a new bridge, had been considered.

 

[LAX54]

I haven't read the report in detail. However the quotes here are a good example of how safety on the railway is improved through learning; the RAIB have now decided that something that has been deemed reasonable for the last (nearly) two centuries is now not so.

Resolving this will, of course, cost money. And quite a lot of it. It rather puts ORR in a bit of a spot.

Expect the closure programme of user worked crossings to step up a notch.

Or convert POGO crossings back to regular UWC but with a gate /phone / RG lights, we have a POGO within our area, alhtough out of use at the moment, was always a nightmare, many people could not even work out how to work the green button !

 

[eastdyke]

Or convert POGO crossings back to regular UWC but with a gate /phone / RG lights, we have a POGO within our area, alhtough out of use at the moment, was always a nightmare, many people could not even work out how to work the green button !

That would be Routs? Some of the 'locals' must be finding the closure somewhat inconvenient, it was more heavily 'used' than some public highway crossings.
The Routs crossing is referred to by RAIB in paragraphs 120-124 of the report being discussed.
On the forum we have had two threads concerning Routs this year.
I was then, and am still now, of the view that POGO crossings are perfectly safe when used in compliance with the instructions on site.
However, it seems that some users do find it counter intuitive when a crossing with powered gates can actually be open when a train is about to pass.

 

[185]

Had a good read through the report, quite interesting. I agree with their principle reason that signage was not prominent which I believe was poorly worded. The tiny print under the word "Stop" was not as good as the old "Stop and telephone signaller". All the other signs (P12) are rather confusing at a crossing - should be one clear sign.

Not: 1. Push Button 2. Cross Quickl(bang!)

 

[LAX54]

That would be Routs? Some of the 'locals' must be finding the closure somewhat inconvenient, it was more heavily 'used' than some public highway crossings.
The Routs crossing is referred to by RAIB in paragraphs 120-124 of the report being discussed.
On the forum we have had two threads concerning Routs this year.
I was then, and am still now, of the view that POGO crossings are perfectly safe when used in compliance with the instructions on site.
However, it seems that some users do find it counter intuitive when a crossing with powered gates can actually be open when a train is about to pass.

Indeed 'Routs' which I understand will reopen on 7th September, or thereabouts, its' not only the public confused about POGOs, some Train Drivers were/are too

 

[eastdyke]

Even easier, and cheaper, would be to close it.

You're in favour of the holistic approach then?

 

[Bald Rick]

Would apparently prevent access for some vehicles as the underpasses appear to be of limited headroom (designed as cattle creeps?). It's mentioned that lowering the road under the underpasses, or building a new bridge, had been considered.

1) but all the land the crossing has exclusive access to, plus any other land required to get access to it by other means.
2) close crossing
3) sell all the land.

It’s been done many, many times before. Albeit not on this scale. The net cost is that of the transaction charges.

 

[Bald Rick]

Or convert POGO crossings back to regular UWC but with a gate /phone / RG lights, we have a POGO within our area, alhtough out of use at the moment, was always a nightmare, many people could not even work out how to work the green button !

Phone R/G lights conversions will be around half a million each; It would be much cheaper to close them, old chap.

 

[sbt]

The net cost is that of the transaction charges.

The net cost to the the railway / Network Rail. The net cost, in money and other less tangible costs, to the locality and the proprietors of the closure of a viable farming business[1], and at least one other business, plus a number of people being moved out of their homes, is not neutral.

I have a radical alternative suggestion: Network Rail, DfT at al could manage their crossings better and if they have to force the closure of crossings do so in a manner that minimises the impact on people outside the railway business rather than focusing on minimising the impact on the railway business.

In any case, any actions leading to the closure of this crossing will take time. In the meantime this crossing, and all the others, will need to be properly managed rather than (as Network Rail seem to have adopted, by default rather than design, as policy for a while), assuming they can be ignored as they will all be removed eventually, at some indeterminate time in the future.

-----

[1] Or rather, loss of use of a large proportion of it's fields for a period of time - the farm buildings are the other side of the road from the turning to the LC. Which is as good as closure, since sheep cannot just be packed away in a warehouse for a while - they need to graze somewhere and spare pasture isn't just lying around idle, for the taking. Neither can flocks just reestablished from nothing.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Let us not also forget, that the leyman isn't necessarily a railway enthusiast / worker / person with knowledge.
we've all [road users] driven over some form of level crossing at somepoint, and they generally all have a big long instruction sign, and a big yellow telephone.. however these generally aren't used by normal drivers, so the question is, is it clear than these are different instructions to what he would be used to seeing, and that they apply in this case to him

We haven't though. I took my driving test (and all lessons) in Huddersfield: a town with no road-rail level crossings at all. Discounting the peculiar one at Batley (which I'm not sure is open to regular road traffic any longer) the closest ones are at Dodworth near Barnsley and at Streethouse on the far side of Wakefield. There will be plenty of drivers in Huddersfield who have never encountered a level crossing, either when learning or after they passed their driving test. Other than the few pages in The Highway Code (if they bothered to read it) and maybe one or two questions on the Theory Test, they won't necessarily have any understanding of the "dos and donts"... not if they're a bit stupid, anyway.

 

[GB]

There will be plenty of drivers in Huddersfield who have never encountered a level crossing, either when learning or after they passed their driving test. Other than the few pages in The Highway Code (if they bothered to read it) and maybe one or two questions on the Theory Test, they won't necessarily have any understanding of the "dos and donts"... not if they're a bit stupid, anyway.

That doesn't really wash though.

You do not know what questions you will be asked on the theory test therefore you need to learn everything. You do not need to know the ins and outs of 90% of the crossings the public will encounter...you only need to know red lights means stop and not to go around any barriers.

 

[najaB]

...you only need to know red lights means stop and not to go around any barriers.

And if there aren't any lights and a gate rather than a barrier?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That doesn't really wash though.

You do not know what questions you will be asked on the theory test therefore you need to learn everything. You do not need to know the ins and outs of 90% of the crossings the public will encounter...you only need to know red lights means stop and not to go around any barriers.

Well yes, but there's no substitute for real-world experience. Ideally all tests would include a level crossing but in places like Huddersfield and Halifax (and no doubt many others) it isn't easily do-able. Even if all the closed lines round Huddersfield had stayed open, I don't think there were many crossings, if any.

 

[GB]

Well yes, but there's no substitute for real-world experience. Ideally all tests would include a level crossing but in places like Huddersfield and Halifax (and no doubt many others) it isn't easily do-able. Even if all the closed lines round Huddersfield had stayed open, I don't think there were many crossings, if any.

Thats my point though. Should you really need to see or go over a level crossing to understand the fact red pretty much universally means stop and barriers are normally present to stop you going forward.

At pogo and other occupational crossings there are signs present....there might be more signs than necessary but you shouldn't be using them unless authorised and if you can't spend a minute or two reading the signs then you shouldn't be in charge of a vehicle.

 

[najaB]

At pogo and other occupational crossings there are signs present....there might be more signs than necessary but you shouldn't be using them unless authorised and if you can't spend a minute or two reading the signs then you shouldn't be in charge of a vehicle.

And if the signs give conflicting instructions?

 

[Bald Rick]

I have a radical alternative suggestion: Network Rail, DfT at al could manage their crossings better and if they have to force the closure of crossings do so in a manner that minimises the impact on people outside the railway business rather than focusing on minimising the impact on the railway business.

How do you propose:

a) to manage level crossings ‘better’, and
b) manage closures in a way that *further* minimises impact on people outside the railway. To see how the process is managed now, read the Inpectors report into the TWO granted for the LX closures on the Felixstowe line. I’d be interested to see how the impact on people outside the railway could have been further minimised.

 

[Llanigraham]

On the Cambrian, between Caersws and Talerddig, following several near misses and a couple of very severe incidents, NR and the County Council have constructed a new road and bridge linking several farms and small holdings and closed several UWC's. This has taken a long time to organise and has been very expensive for both bodies, but it has cured the problem.

 

[sbt]

but you shouldn't be using them unless authorised

Which the RAIB describe in the report as impractical in the modern world.

 

[sbt]

How do you propose:

a) to manage level crossings ‘better’, and

I'm not an expert on railways, Level Crossings, the relevant law, relevant Human factors etc. so I am going to pass on most of that, except to suggest that maybe, just maybe, implementing the changes that are in the pipeline and those suggested by the RAIB would be at least a start.

b) manage closures in a way that *further* minimises impact on people outside the railway. To see how the process is managed now, read the Inpectors report into the TWO granted for the LX closures on the Felixstowe line. I’d be interested to see how the impact on people outside the railway could have been further minimised.

If something is to be imposed, then perhaps imposing one or more of the suggestions listed in the report as having been rejected for various reasons. For example the idea of closing this crossing and adding a road link to the Bax crossing nearby was rejected due to objections from one of the landowners (not necessarily any of the landowners that rely on the crossing - we aren't told) over whose land the link would run. Maybe Compulsory Purchasing a thin strip of land alongside the railway and building a road whilst the crossing is still available for use would be less drastic than the 'close all the things and the devil take the non-railway plebs' approach.

And in the meantime doing as the RAIB suggest.

 

[sbt]

... and barriers are normally present to stop you going forward.

And that is one of the key points the RAIB make. The driver was conditioned by the Level Crossings he used every day on the normal roads to expect the barriers to stop him from crossing when it was unsafe and allow him to proceed when it was safe to do so. With a POGO this is not true.

At this crossing, and probably many others, this is not stated clearly enough in the blizzard of signage, some of which gives an itemised series of steps on what to do when crossing that omits checking whether it is safe to cross.

 

[Llanigraham]

If something is to be imposed, then perhaps imposing one or more of the suggestions listed in the report as having been rejected for various reasons. For example the idea of closing this crossing and adding a road link to the Bax crossing nearby was rejected due to objections from one of the landowners (not necessarily any of the landowners that rely on the crossing - we aren't told) over whose land the link would run. Maybe Compulsory Purchasing a thin strip of land alongside the railway and building a road whilst the crossing is still available for use would be less drastic than the 'close all the things and the devil take the non-railway plebs' approach.

And in the meantime doing as the RAIB suggest.

In the example I gave above of the crossings on the Cambrian, all the farmers, residents, land owners and the County Council agreed to the closure of all the relevant crossings and the construction of the new road and bridge, however the process was delayed because the Ramblers Assoc objected to the diversion by 500 metres over the bridge and closure of a short length of Footpath at one of the crossings, that surveys proved was hardly ever used. That objection has done nothing to improve relationships with the RA locally.