• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Trivia: Level crossings that are unlikely to ever be removed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Pinza-C55

Member
Joined
23 May 2015
Messages
1,028
High Street, Lincoln is virtually pedestrianised with very limited vehicle access, plus it has a lift equipped footbridge alongside, so could be closed with relatively little inconvenience. On a recent visit I was surprised how busy the line was. One closure lasted over 10 minutes.

Consequence of the crazy decision to close the avoiding line.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
High Street, Lincoln is virtually pedestrianised with very limited vehicle access, plus it has a lift equipped footbridge alongside, so could be closed with relatively little inconvenience. On a recent visit I was surprised how busy the line was. One closure lasted over 10 minutes.
I imagine pedestrians would be grumpy if they were forced to use the bridge though, rather than crossing on the flat, even if it means a wait.

And being pedestrians, there's far lower risk to the railway than if there was regular vehicle traffic. You'll get the occasional idiot trying to jump the barriers, but it's not as if pedestrians can break down and get stuck on the crossing!
 

Dougal2345

Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
547
In the future, won't AI make level crossings much safer anyway...?

If I understand correctly, crossings with full barriers are remotely human-operated using a CCTV camera (or by a local keeper)?

And AHBs are automatic and rely on the road users acting sensibly, leaving them an "escape route"?

But surely we will soon be at a point where AI and image recognition will allow all crossings to go full-barriered, with the monitoring done by software rather than by human being, with far more reliability...?

So the safety case for removing them at enormous expense will weaken...?

Just a thought, possibly controversial...
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,218
Location
Bristol
In the future, won't AI make level crossings much safer anyway...?

If I understand correctly, crossings with full barriers are remotely human-operated using a CCTV camera (or by a local keeper)?

And AHBs are automatic and rely on the road users acting sensibly, leaving them an "escape route"?

But surely we will soon be at a point where AI and image recognition will allow all crossings to go full-barriered, with the monitoring done by software rather than by human being, with far more reliability...?

So the safety case for removing them at enormous expense will weaken...?

Just a thought, possibly controversial...
Obstacle detection utilising radar and similar techs is already in use. Its still not as good as a fence though.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
But surely we will soon be at a point where AI and image recognition will allow all crossings to go full-barriered, with the monitoring done by software rather than by human being, with far more reliability...?

The majority of highway level crossing reliability issues are either related to the train detection system, or by highway users hitting the barriers. ‘AI’ crossings - what are known as MCB-OD* crossings, do not reduce this.

Similarly the risk at fully barriered highway crossings is largely due to vehicles smashing through the barriers with a train imminent. Again, MCB-OD doesn’t reduce this.

*Manually Controlled Barriers - Obstacle Detection. Somewhat misnamed as the barriers are not manually controlled!
 

w0033944

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2011
Messages
552
Location
Norfolk
Swainsthorpe on the GEML near me is another - in the centre of a village, with properties on both sides and a junction with the A140 some 300 metres to the east.
 

DJ_K666

Member
Joined
5 May 2009
Messages
620
Location
Way too far north of 75A
Shoreham-by-Sea:
Station Crossing at the end of the platforms is in a built up area and nowhere for a bridge to be put in. There is a bridge for low vehicles approximately 200 yards away on Southdown Road which can fit a single deck bus. All trains crossing here are either arriving or departing as all trains stop, however, arrival speeds on the up line are still high due to the 12 coach platforms

Eastern Avenue crossing: Nowhere to put the ramps unless you want a bend in them. Houses on the north side and a road immediately alongside the railway makes any kind of bridge impossible without loads of demolitions and then road-building wizardry. And even then space would be limited. Any approach ramps would have to be too steep due to the proximity of the coat road. The loss of a McDonalds would be of no consequence to me, however.

Portslade
Nowhere to put a bridge. The crossing runs adjacent to the junctions of two major roads right at the platform ends. A;so in a heavily built up area. There is an underbridge about 500 yards west and an overbridge around the same distance east. Making these one way on a ring road might work but that is too sensible for any local authority to consider.
 

Strathclyder

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
3,178
Location
Clydebank
Logans Road, Motherwell. It’s been looked at in the past for elimination, and it’s one that both NR and the local authority would like rid of as it’s a major headache in the event of failure/damage. Just no easy answer.
I thought about that one. The time to have done it would have been when the Motherwell Bridge works site was being cleared, but you’d probably have had to remove some of Derby CS as well. The boat has sailed on that one now it’s all housing I think.
Logans Rd was the first one that sprang to mind when I saw the thread and am a bit surprised that it took until reply #128 for it to be mentioned. No easy solution at all here as it's right on the junction with Bellshill Rd and has housing both sides of the road on the north-west side as @alangla correctly states. For those unaware, this is the crossing in question (a screengrab from Google Maps attached below). Possibly the one crossing in Scotland that NR wants shot of just as much as the relevent local authority (North Lanarkshire Council in this case) does, but the window to do so has long since closed.

Screenshot 2021-09-22 15.51.20.png
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,810
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
The majority of highway level crossing reliability issues are either related to the train detection system, or by highway users hitting the barriers. ‘AI’ crossings - what are known as MCB-OD* crossings, do not reduce this.

Similarly the risk at fully barriered highway crossings is largely due to vehicles smashing through the barriers with a train imminent. Again, MCB-OD doesn’t reduce this.

*Manually Controlled Barriers - Obstacle Detection. Somewhat misnamed as the barriers are not manually controlled!
Did make me wonder why they weren't ever called ACB-OD - Automatically Controlled Barriers - Obstacle Detection
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top