Llanigraham
On Moderation
Which is why I suspect they have put an additional, non-approved sign, on the gate that basically repeats what the official signage says.
-
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!
Welshpool crossing crash (22/06/20)
- Thread starter Meole
- Start date
- Status
Which is why I suspect they have put an additional, non-approved sign, on the gate that basically repeats what the official signage says.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Even if they put a request on their booking paperwork or website asking for visitors to phone them for someone to meet them at the crossing people wouldn't bother. The system of accommodation crossings was produced in the days when such places only had a small group of visitors, mostly regulars such as farm labourers and the postie. I'm not sure it's fit for a purpose now, when even a domestic dwelling gets a range of deliveries from many different drivers and companies.
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
I bet some of the residents of said kennels have more sense?
The only sign of instructions for the crossing to customers is buried at section 2.3 of their terms & conditions. No mention of it being user worked as opposed to the common style of crossing with barriers/gates. It's not apparent what they do for suppliers etc
They state it is the users' responsibility to comply with the crossing rules, but I was under the impression that for user-worked/occupation crossings it was the landowner's responsibility, stated in their contract with Network Rail, to ensure compliance.
They state it is the users' responsibility to comply with the crossing rules, but I was under the impression that for user-worked/occupation crossings it was the landowner's responsibility, stated in their contract with Network Rail, to ensure compliance.
Attachments
The only sign of instructions for the crossing to customers is buried at section 2.3 of their terms & conditions. No mention of it being user worked as opposed to the common style of crossing with barriers/gates. It's not apparent what they do for suppliers etc
They state it is the users' responsibility to comply with the crossing rules, but I was under the impression that for user-worked/occupation crossings it was the landowner's responsibility, stated in their contract with Network Rail, to ensure compliance.
Check the ‘Contact Us’ page, which I suggest most people do if they want to make a booking!
alxndr
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 1,483
Or they would go directly to the booking form accessed from the "request a booking" button on the homepage. This page does not mention the crossing.
One thing that NR seems to be addressing is the disparity between UWCs with and without phones.
Most drivers, rightly or wrongly, are not going to expect to have to phone to use a level crossing like this.
Likewise, I think we’ve established that a sizeable majority don’t read the notices. Indeed, the only instruction that can be read from any sizeable distance is the word STOP.
Even so, a driver who considers themselves to be familiar with UWCs is unlikely to read the notices at every single UWC. Why would they? They know how to use them after all, they’ve done it lots: they know never to cross until both gates are open and have checked thoroughly.
That is, until the day they have to use a UWC that requires a phone call to the signaller. There’s little that makes it immediately obvious that a near-identical crossing works in a substantially different way.
Even the phone is not a hint. Lots of LCs have phones, so the presence of one may well not draw much attention alone.
So, the signage has to be clearer (rightly or wrongly) to ensure users know the correct course of action 100% of the time.
NR are currently trialling new signage that makes clear the danger and the action required by users at a glance - with no need to read a paragraph or two of guidance first.
It looks sensible enough to me. It just might be enough to remove the need for visitors to places like the aforementioned kennels to be briefed on its use beforehand.
Most drivers, rightly or wrongly, are not going to expect to have to phone to use a level crossing like this.
Likewise, I think we’ve established that a sizeable majority don’t read the notices. Indeed, the only instruction that can be read from any sizeable distance is the word STOP.
Even so, a driver who considers themselves to be familiar with UWCs is unlikely to read the notices at every single UWC. Why would they? They know how to use them after all, they’ve done it lots: they know never to cross until both gates are open and have checked thoroughly.
That is, until the day they have to use a UWC that requires a phone call to the signaller. There’s little that makes it immediately obvious that a near-identical crossing works in a substantially different way.
Even the phone is not a hint. Lots of LCs have phones, so the presence of one may well not draw much attention alone.
So, the signage has to be clearer (rightly or wrongly) to ensure users know the correct course of action 100% of the time.
NR are currently trialling new signage that makes clear the danger and the action required by users at a glance - with no need to read a paragraph or two of guidance first.
It looks sensible enough to me. It just might be enough to remove the need for visitors to places like the aforementioned kennels to be briefed on its use beforehand.
Looking at the picture it seems very straight forward to me, the phone even has a picture of a phione above it !The signage on that crossing is an absolute dog's breakfast. Looking at the images of Powys Dog Training on Google Maps, the warning signs in order of prominence say:
1. STOP
2. STOP - LOOK - LISTEN Beware of trains
3. BOARDING KENNEL OPENING TIMES
4. Caution - CCTV operated by Network Rail
5. 1.Open far gate before crossing with vehicles or animals / 2.Cross quickly / 3.Close and secure gates after use
6. Always telephone before crossing with vehicles or animals to find out if there is time to cross
Yes, there is a telephone, but it is located behind the railway fence, so to a driver unfamiliar with UWCs, it looks like it is for use by railway staff.
I can easily see how a unfamiliar driver would find the instructions 1,2,3 in black and white and follow them to the letter. And this is a crossing to a boarding kennels. They must have dozens of visitors every week who have never been there before and may never have seen a User Worked Crossing.
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.www.google.co.uk
Ploughman
Established Member
Which lasts how long before every user knows the code?
System could involve a code that changes every time it is used, which gets around that issue.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think something like this was produced recently but I can't remember where I saw it.
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
Why cant the signalman unlock the gate remotely, is there not a link to a 24hr staffed box?
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Considering how many UWCs that Machynlleth has to deal with I don't think that is very practical.
And I'm not actually sure how that would work as there would have to be a digital connection to every so equipped crossing.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Because that would mean there would have to be a digital connection to every crossing, which would be very expensive and proved to meet all safety constraints.
Plus the number of crossings controlled by Machy.
One of the issues, it has come out in other accident reports, is the phone from the crossing not being answered. If the box is involved in other tasks, such as setting up a possession, calls from crossing users take bottom priority. Which is a railway perspective, but leads to crossing users considering the phone ineffective. One of the recent accident reports actually had an analysis of how many calls had been made from a crossing, and the notably lesser number actually answered. I believe older equipment only records conversations made, not unanswered calls.
Last edited:
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Do they?
I can only answer from my experience, but if the crossing phone rang then any other call was told to hang on and I would answer that call first.
Certainly on our "concentrator" ALL calls were recorded, even if they didn't get answered.
Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 11,917
Would the signaller automatically know which (user worked crossing) telephone a call is coming in from? (i.e. Caller display?)
If it was aviation the central control would call up the pilot on the radio and ask them to confirm where they were, although they could see anyway, not by some expensive radar but by simplistic GPS. I notice nowadays even plant hire companies have a map display in the office showing exactly where all their plant is by GPS. The railway, although having all the technology, seems not to go for any of this.
Last edited:
Tom Quinne
On Moderation
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 2,225
Yes, although it depends how clearly the crossing name is displayed on the telephone concentrator.
Although the user should tell you, and you should check the location of the crossing - long with how long they’ll need to cross, what their crossing with and an assurance that they’ll call back crossing clear the other side.
As soon as you satisfy yourself the section is clear, and it’s safe to authorise the crossing you must apply signal collars on the protecting signals.
Nottingham59
Established Member
My understanding is that protecting signals are only used for large and slow vehicles. Most vehicles are expected to cross without protection. At Bagilit UWC, the signaller gave permission for a vehicle to cross 2m 25s before a train was expected, without realising that it was a 60 tonne baler - and therefore did not set protecting signals.
In some places it does. But it comes back to our old friend signallers workload. As an example, the signallers ar Saxmundham can often deal with several hundred crossing calls in a shift, and that’s on top of signalling trains. I imagine Macc ‘box is similar.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
A GPS position can't be relied on to make a decision that could be life or death. The system isn't designed to the same level of safety integrity as, say, the track circuits and axle counters that locate trains to the signalling, or the circuits that work level crossing lights and barriers. The risk has to be considered that it will have "frozen" and give an out-of-date position, or even that it's gone completely wild and its output is essentially random (although in that case you'd be pretty unlucky if it was on the railway).
This is why, as stated in my notes, control would call up the pilot on the radio to confirm their position. Any discrepancy between what was shown and what they were told would then have a series of procedures to handle it. Aviation safety authorities are not fools and understand quite well how to make watertight safety systems. It's a sight better than the "Well, it's left Marks Tey, I'll only know when it gets to Sudbury in 20 minutes time, have you seen it passing by chance" approach, as described in the East Anglia accident report, which led to derision by the UWC users.
Last edited:
Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 11,917
Of course, as regards the railway, GPS doesn't work too well in steep cuttings and almost certainly not at all in long tunnels.
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
Aircraft have been able to make approaches to runways in zero visibility, navigating by sole reference to GPS signals, for many decades now. The suggestion that GPS isn't reliable enough to be used for safety critical applications is absolute bunkum. Yes, the kind of GPS you get on a smartphone isn't good enough. But if you pay the right people enough money you can get kit that can be guaranteed to be sufficiently accurate and failsafe.
The simple truth of the matter is that not enough people have died, or will die, over the railway's stubbornness in this regard, for it to have become a priority.
Yes, there are places where GPS signals from satellites won't work. But it is no different to the implementation of GSM-R - where there is a will, there is a way.
The simple truth of the matter is that not enough people have died, or will die, over the railway's stubbornness in this regard, for it to have become a priority.
Yes, there are places where GPS signals from satellites won't work. But it is no different to the implementation of GSM-R - where there is a will, there is a way.
PG
Established Member
That report can be found at:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/411028/110811_R142011_Sewage_Works_Lane.pdf
Paragraphs 43 and 55 describe what @Taunton has said, which goes some way to explaining why compliance rates at that particular UWC were around 30%.
I hadn't previously read that report, no wonder regular users didn't respect the UWC as they knew that the signaller probably didn't know where the train was either!
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Of course, as regards the railway, GPS doesn't work too well in steep cuttings and almost certainly not at all in long tunnels.
My experience in GPS suggests otherwise, but it is several decades old (I was probably the first person in Europe to try it on a train) so I accept that may have changed. However nobody uses it in a railway safety-critical application as far as I'm aware.
Tom Quinne
On Moderation
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 2,225
Because of that incident all UWC requests are now protected by reds no matter how long the user needs.
- Status