Network Rail says 10% of Britain's level crossings closed (BBC News)

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

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^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)) 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".

Also from the BBC, a video news report on the same subject:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25823017

[Tim]

A fine example of rail engineers doing one of the things that they do best - identifying a risk and rather than going into breakdown (as Railtrack once did), prioritising and steadily reducing that risk

[IndustryInsider]

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.

[broadgage]

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), foot crossings are a lower priority than those used by vehicles.

Whilst any loss of life is regretable, the loss of inoccent lives on a train is arguably of greater importance than the loss of those misusing a crossing.

If a pedestrian crosses the line without looking and listening properly, they are most unlikely to kill anyone but themselves.

If the driver of a road vehicle fails to follow the rules and collides with a train, then they could kill people on the train. The road vehicle driver chose to take a risk and must accept the possible consequences. The train driver and passengers had no choice.

[Tim]

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.

You might be right, but it was my understanding that the 10% closed was a mixture of those which were easy to close and those which were of highest risk.  And remember that deaths on foot and farm crossings have made up a good proportion of the recent statistics on crossing deaths. 

[Thatcham Crossing]

I wonder where Ufton Nervet figures in these plans?

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

[stuving]

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

I wonder. I would have said the same about Wokingham Station crossing, on the grounds it is very visible (e.g. it's pictured several times in the RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board)'s "A guide to RSSB research in Road-Rail Interface Safety") and must have been assessed quite often.

However, I came across two NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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^▸ (Level Crossing) 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.

[Tim]

I wonder where Ufton Nervet figures in these plans?

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^▸ (Level Crossing) itself unchanged.

[Rhydgaled]

One of the thoughts that crossed my mind when I saw the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) 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? Probably the most called for new line here in Wales is Carmarthen - Aberystwyth. While the costs of that scheme are likely to be prohibative, I can't see it even being possible without at least one level crossing to reach the trackless platform 2 (counting the Vale Of Rheidol as platform 1 and the current heavy rail platform as platform 3). Assuming all other hurdles are overcome, could the need for a level crossing stop the Carmarthen-Aberystwyth railway, or any other proposed new/reopened line, in its tracks?

[IndustryInsider]

One of the thoughts that crossed my mind when I saw the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) 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?

It sure doesn't help with costs, that's for sure.  Portishead is a good example where roads and level crossings and ideal station locations prove to be bothersome in the least.  I'll be interested to see how many crossings remain open on the East-West Rail link when it reopens in 2017.  There are quite a number of foot crossings, farm crossings and minor road crossings that will be closed/diverted between Oxford and Bicester when the Chiltern route opens in 2015/6 which will help with Network Rail's ambitions to close another 500 over the coming years!

[BerkshireBugsy]

I wonder where Ufton Nervet figures in these plans?

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^▸ (Level Crossing) itself unchanged.

Thanks for bringing in the aspect of points in relation to level crossings - that wasn't something I had considered.

Regarding Thatcham level crossing I'm not sure how it could be eliminated given it's proximity to the kennet and avon canal to its south, the industrial estate on the Northern side and last but no means least the pub !

[Thatcham Crossing]

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.

[BerkshireBugsy]

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 know we are getting into local specifics here and I agree with you TC^‡(resolve) but I'm not sure I would want to sit in the swan beer garden with the bridge there. One of the few benefits of the crossing is it slows the traffic down going past the pub (not that us a serious justification for it staying there)

[Thatcham Crossing]

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

Neither would I, but I would call it a small sacrifice in the name of progress that would probably be welcomed by thousands of local residents. And it would help Network Rail's stats aswell 

Like I said though, it ain't gonna happen.

[ellendune]

On the south side it would almost certainly require the replacement of the canal bridge, but I do not think the river bridge would need replacing.

On the north side yes access to the station and the post office might be tricky to work out but there is some space and at least they are not residential properties that would not like being overlooked.

In short tricky but possible.