Ufton level crossing collision report now online

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
48,282
Location
Yorkshire
Full report not made public, but you can get the summary here:-

http://www.rssb.co.uk/getArticle.asp?DocRef=828

The Slash was right at the time, about the location of the points being a contributory factor. A very unfortunate chain of events.

In the recommendations it talks about closing and improving crossings, which of course everyone would like to see. But it must be at the ROAD industry's expense, paid for by motorists!

I am disappointed at some of the other recommendations. Seat belts? No way. Modifying front ends of trains? Err, no. The problem is not with the trains! Get those bloody motorists off our railway lines!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

David

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Messages
5,105
Location
Scunthorpe
I have not read the summery yet, but here is response to Yorkie.

yorkie said:
In the recommendations it talks about closing and improving crossings.
I agree

yorkie said:
It must be at the ROAD industry's expense, paid for by motorists!
The Road Industry should NOT bear the full cost of this, as it would be highly unfair on the vast majority of motorists. We pay enough already with insurance, road tax and the duty on fuel, as well as having the police thinking that we are an easy target (especially lorry drivers, of which I am one.)

In my opinion, if the road industry has to pay for all the improvements, then it will send the UK into a long term recession, because companies will not be able to afford the costs of moving their products around the country.

By and large, the rail industry isn't in a position to compete with the roads as far as the transport of goods is concered, because of it's inherent lack of flexability. It would need an immense amount of money spent on the network to create a lot of yards, which would only handle 1 or 2 lorry loads (equivalent) a week. This of course would prove to be highly un-economic, and send the country even further into recession.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
48,282
Location
Yorkshire
Harry Potter said:
The Road Industry should NOT bear the full cost of this, as it would be highly unfair on the vast majority of motorists. We pay enough already with insurance, road tax and the duty on fuel, as well as having the police thinking that we are an easy target (especially lorry drivers, of which I am one.)
I'm afraid there's no other way. In most cases the railway was there first anyway, so by rights the road industry should pay.

As for being unfair, well it would be even more unfair to pay for this through the farebox or for non-motorists to pay.

Also the road industry would benefit day in, day out by eliminating crossings with bridges, thus saving all road users time. If they're not prepared to pay for a bridge (or underpass) then the crossing can't be that important and it can then be closed.
 

Lewisham2221

Member
Joined
23 Jun 2005
Messages
1,014
Location
Staffordshire
IMO the money needs to be spent on preventing the accidents in the first place by preventing cars from getting onto level crossing when they shouldn't do. Who should pay for this is debatable, in part it should be motorists, especially is many accidents are caused by the motorist being defiant of the level crossing. However some accidents are also caused by level crossing failure, and this would mean that the railway should be liable. So perhaps a joint solution is required.
 

David

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Messages
5,105
Location
Scunthorpe
Just to clarify my position.

Yes eleminating level crossings is a very good idea, but to build all replacement bridges &/or underpasses at the same time, or in a very tight timescale would cripple the road industry.

On the other hand, if the road industry had to bear all the costs, even if it was spread out over 10 - 15 years, it would still cripple the road industry.

Obviosly a compromise has to be reached, because in my opinion, the rail network is only able to take a small amout of traffic of the roads, before it reaches breaking point itself (especially around London).

One possibe solution to this (considering some routes need to be upgraded) is this.

When it comes to upgrading a route, Network Rail & The Highways Agency work together to get rid of level crossings. This way it avoids putting too much pressure on either industry and bringing the country to a standstill.
 

Hubert_F

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2005
Messages
23
Location
Watford, Hertfordshire
I see it is best to eradicate level crossings where they protect major rail lines (such as Silk Mill on the GWML and Hademore Crossing on the WCML) as they impead the flow of traffic for a great amount of time and is sustainable in the long term.
Level crossings which protect low intensive rail lines (compared to main lines), such as the crossing next to Watford North Station (one station on a single line branch) in my opinion should still stay as they do not block traffic for a great length of time.
With the amount of level crossings activated each day, it is reasonable to replace such crossings over a long period of time though.
But what I am very concerned is with car drivers who drive across level crossings when wig-wags are activated.

Even though it was a summary report, it has bought up some very intresting reccomendations such as photo-luminescent markings to emergency equipment and emergency lighting to be installed during the refurb.
 

Met Driver

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
1,734
Hubert said:
I see it is best to eradicate level crossings where they protect major rail lines (such as Silk Mill on the GWML and Hademore Crossing on the WCML) as they impead the flow of traffic for a great amount of time and is sustainable in the long term.
I agree. Silk Mills is an absolute nightmare. It causes huge traffic jams, and crosses a 100mph(?) stretch of line. Thankfully, it is now being replaced by a girder bridge which is nearly finished.
 

Simming

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
1,186
Location
Cornwall
Trains are only 100mph if they are non-stop. The Majourity are slowing for the taunton stop, or accelerating away from it.

Although the Exeter Signalman (stuff PC) who does the CCTV crossings is usually good at timing, as when Ive been at Taunton platform, the signal goes from Yellow to green seconds from departure, minimizing delayto both road and rail.
 

Met Driver

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
1,734
Simming said:
Although the Exeter Signalman (stuff PC) who does the CCTV crossings is usually good at timing, as when Ive been at Taunton platform, the signal goes from Yellow to green seconds from departure, minimizing delayto both road and rail.
Maybe so, but it doesn't make getting to the WSR any easier. I'm yet to get through the outskirts of Taunton without getting stuck in traffic.
 

joeholmes

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2005
Messages
367
Im am just going to have my say here!

I personally think that there are many un-used points across the rail network, now i feel that these need to be removed! When removed it provides a more confortable ride and provide more safety is a set of wheels where to be (god forbide) loose!

Network Rail removed rusty track!!! ARGH

Joe

(Rant Over)
 

bunnahabhain

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
1,829
joeholmes said:
Im am just going to have my say here!

I personally think that there are many un-used points across the rail network, now i feel that these need to be removed!
How do you know that the points are un-used, many points look un-used because you never see them carry a train down the diverging route, but that's not to say that they are disused, you can stand at Loughborough Chord Junction all day long, and the points wont move, but stand there a month, and you'll get a train up to British Gypsum at East Leake.

A fair few are disused as well, but you never know if they may become used again.
 

Met Driver

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
1,734
joeholmes said:
I personally think that there are many un-used points across the rail network, now i feel that these need to be removed! When removed it provides a more confortable ride and provide more safety is a set of wheels where to be (god forbide) loose!)
I fail to see how points are relevant to this discussion. We are talking about level crossings.
 

Simming

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
1,186
Location
Cornwall
It cost £1000s to remove Points, and alter all the signalling. And the Points at Ufton Where still in use, as it was a goods loop. BR had the same idea as you in the 80s, with rationisation, and look what mess that got them in, having to spend £1000s more putting points back in 'Cause they needed them.
 

joeholmes

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2005
Messages
367
Simming,
With all do respect the points that derailed where un-used... I wrote to FGW and expressed my sympathys for this incedent and they replied quite a while later (understandably) stating that they appreciate my letter and the said to prevent an incident happening like this they will look at manning more crossing and taking UN_USED points out!

Seth,
This post isnt all about level crossings, TBH it is about the fact that the Ufton level crossing collisions report is now online!!!

Jaime C Steel.
I didnt say all the points where un-used and i didnt say take all the points out, you mis-interpted me. I will make this clear! Take points that have no use what so - ever out, points that lead to place that are un-used and take them out and provide more confortable rides for the average commuter!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top