Great Western Coffee Shop

Some 10% of Britain's level crossings have been closed since 2010 as part of a programme to improve rail safety, Network Rail has said.

Measures to improve crossing safety have also been introduced across the country, including power operated gates and electronic warning systems.

More than ^130m has been spent by Network Rail during that period.

Network Rail said it would invest a further ^100m and close 500 more crossings over the next five years.

The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) announced an increase in funding to close and improve level crossing safety in October.

Ten people were accidentally killed at level crossings in 2013, Network Rail said.

Network Rail managing director of network operations Robin Gisby said: "Reaching our target to close 750 crossings in four years is good news for Network Rail, train operators and of course the public, but we cannot be complacent.

"There is much more we can do to make the level crossings that remain safer and we will continue to introduce new technology, upgrade crossings to include lights or barriers where appropriate and work with schools, communities and other organisations to spread awareness of our safety message."

He added that closing level crossings is not straightforward "so we will need the support from local authorities, landowners and the public to help us achieve our new target and improve safety further still".

All very good and the more that close the better, but a lot of these crossings closed are very minor foot/farm crossings used by a tiny amount of people, so whilst 10% have closed I suspect the likelihood of an actual crossing incident has decreased by a much smaller percentage.

I'm not even going to ask about Thatcham, as it will never happen  :(

I wonder where Ufton Nervet figures in these plans?

One of the thoughts that crossed my mind when I saw the BBC run the story on the news was: where does this leave new lines / reopenings? Are the saftey risks such that reopenning lines could be ruled out because they would require adding additional level crossings to the network?

I have no idea.  The risk (to the train rather than the road user) at Ufton Nervet was increased due to the presence of pointwork.  The train remained upright until it came to the points. 

The pointwork did not make the accident more likely, but it did increase the harm (and it is suspected the loss of life on the train) caused by the derailment.

There might be some crossings that could be made safer by removing or relocating pointwork and leaving the LC itself unchanged.

I'm not sure how it could be eliminated either BB, as per my earlier statement, but it sure as hell needs to be!

I do actually believe there is room to build a bridge that could span the railway, canal and river, but it would not be cheap and would require an access road underneath it to enable entrance to the station itself and Royal Mail site etc. The Swan could be accessed from the Piper's Way/Station Road roundabout.

I'm not sure I would want to sit in The Swan beer garden with the bridge there.

A new all-modes road bridge across the railway (or road underpass plus pedestrian overbridge) at London Road. Alternatively a new link road from the A41 overbridge to London Road (and pedestrian overbridge)  or a new link road from Charbridge Road to Launton Road (plus pedestrian overbridge).

Conversion of current level crossing of A4144 Bicester eastern perimeter road with Oxford-Bletchley Railway line into grade separated over/under-bridge.  Part of wider scheme to promote an eastern route around the town for strategic and employment traffic, to reduce congestion in the town centre and enable sustainable transport movements within the town. 

However, I came across two NR guys today who were surveying the crossing to provide inputs for a risk assessment using the ALCRM model. The one I spoke to was very unimpressed indeed with what he saw - he agreed with me that you just can't have a give-way line stopping you getting off a level crossing! He also said that the plan in the LC order showed a different road layout, without the mini-roundabout (so I guess it was as in the 60s, when the straight on road had priority over both side roads).

He knew nothing about the council's plans for a traffic light junction synchronised with the railway crossing, and did not think they could put one in without a lot of regulatory work first - and was not surprised to be told they (WBC) were struggling to find a suitable contractor to do it.

So we'll see what happens.