My terror ordeal at Buttington Cross level crossing - County Times, Powys

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

From the County Times

A WOMAN says she feared for her life after her car came within inches of being hit by a train.

Sandra Banfield, from Welshpool, was travelling back home from Shrewsbury over the railway lines at Buttington Cross when her car got trapped between the warning barriers, which had come down, and the tracks as the train came speeding past.

Mrs Banfield said that the warning barriers came down with ^very little^ warning and if her car had been inches bigger it could have been disastrous as the train failed to stop despite her car being inches from the tracks.

She said: ^The warning lights came on and then within seconds the stop lights came on and the barriers came down.

^The car behind crashed into the back of me as I slammed on the brakes and the barrier came down between me and the car behind. I managed to get out with my passenger and then moments later the train came past at full pelt.

^If it had been a bigger car then it could have been disastrous. Obviously me and the passenger were shook up after the incident but we were able to drive away this time.

^When we rang the police they came out and did take some interest but as it didn^t do any damage to the car they couldn^t do anything.^

Mrs Banfield said she wants to warn people of the dangers that the crossing poses road users.

She added: ^I want to warn people that these barriers come down very quickly with very little warning and if I had a child in the back of the car there would have been no time to get them out to safety.

^When I contacted the transport police they said that it was nothing to do with them and National Rail told me that all trains are fitted with an object detector. You would think something as big as a car would be picked up on this but the train didn^t stop.^

A Network Rail spokesperson said: ^Following a road traffic accident on March 2, a car was reported on Buttington level crossing. This was an isolated incident and a subsequent inspection has found the crossing to be working correctly.

^Level crossings are dangerous places, which is why drivers should be prepared to stop at crossings when the warnings activate.

^To reduce risks at crossings, we close level crossings where possible, with more than 900 closed in the past five years. Those we cannot close we aim to make safer through upgrades or awareness events.^

I suppose the scare was enough, but I really think the police should have considered a prosecution for careless driving, both her and the car behind. If only for her sense of indignation that a perfectly functioning level crossing surprised her when it began its closing sequence. As for trains being fitted with 'object detectors' to stop them - I don't think so. Crossings may have object detectors (I don't think the one at Buttington does), but even then only to prevent a closure sequence and keep a protecting signal at danger. No use if someone has ignored the lights.

[TaplowGreen]

A fortunate escape for all concerned..........not sure indignation is a criminal offence though?

(Probably fortunate really, as we could fill a prison with the contributors to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Coffee shop if it was!!!) 

[SandTEngineer]

....mmm. 3 seconds yellow warning lights, 6 seconds flashing stop lights, 6 seconds for booms to lower, 12 seconds absolute minimum before train arrives 

[Brucey]

<rant>

the train came speeding past

This is something that really gets on my nerves with journalists.  "A speeding car" or "a speeding lorry" would imply the vehicle was exceeding the speed limit.  Yet, "speeding train" seems perfectly acceptable vocabulary.  I've even seen a journalist for a local paper (in the Wiltshire area) who ironically happened to be in the same English class as me at secondary school use this awful wording in one of her first articles at the paper.  Fortunately the stock photograph she chose was appropriate, so I refrained from ranting in the comments box on the website.

</rant>

[stuving]

I wonder how this lady feels now to have her own mistakes and general confusion made public, with no attempt to correct her misunderstandings. You could say more was added in the "reporting", for example by referring to "warning barriers" - they are meant to provide more of a discouragement than just a warning. On the other hand, all level crossing barriers are designed so you can drive through them if the alternative is being hit by a train - but very few people ever do so, presumably most don't realise this.

Buttington is an AHBC^▸ (Automatic Half Barrier Crossing), so there is no exit barrier at all. It's on a skew, and there is easily enough space for a car inside the barrier - though not provided for stopping in. It sounds as though she drives this road, with many level crossings along it but not many trains, quite frequently. So she should be familiar with how they work, though it's possible that by chance she has never been approaching one just as it starts its closing sequence. With a random event like this, even an unlikely combination is likely to have happened to someone.

It would be interesting to hear from the driver behind. If her car really was struck when she stopped suddenly, it suggests she either was not paying attention and reacted late, or over-reacted early. Probably the latter, if the barrier behind her came down after she stopped. Something like she suddenly sees the far barrier start to descend, having not registered the lights (even if seeing them) and for some reason thinks the train may arrive a lot sooner than the one second it will take her to keep going over the crossing.

As to why anyone - whether from "National Rail" or not -  mentioned object detectors, we don't know what she said before that. The other responses appear to be replying to a complaint that the crossing was "too quick", whether by design or being faulty. Perhaps she also queried why the train didn't stop, and got a general answer about all crossings. Of course all trains do have an object detector - it's called the driver.

The publicity about level crossings make no big distinction between different types, but of course there is a major difference between AHBCs and the rest.  At an AHBC the only primary safety mechanism involve the driver no stopping on the crossing. Any car on a crossing after the barriers are down will almost always be hit by a train. On all other crossings (AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know)) the primary safety mechanism can stop a train if there is a car in the way, and the requirement for drivers to not block the track is partly secondary (in case the primary mechanism fails) partly to avoid delaying trains.

Would it help to try and explain that? I suspect not. The current approach is meant to keep it simple, so even the like of this lady can keep themselves safe. I guess strictly speaking it did, as she and her car survived (bar a bump up the back end that her insurers will be liable for), but doing the same thing at a crossing with less space from barrier to track could have been very different. 

Was the official response too dismissive? Probably, as an opportunity was missed to replace the above recital of confusion with something more targeted. If (as it shows) there are just a few drivers who think - or react as if they think - the descending barriers mean "stop where you are", it must be worth putting out the message "once you are past the entry barrier, keep going". Even if it's not an AHBC, the exit barrier comes down later so you can do that.

[phile]

Suggest she ignored the red lights and blaming everything and everybody else for her getting caught.

[stuving]

Well, yes - though there's no way of distinguishing between ignoring and not noticing. On second thoughts she must have started braking well before the entry barrier, so probably reacted to that starting to descend and misjudged whether she could stop before it.

In some ways the bit that's hard to explain is why she has gone to the BTP^▸ (British Transport Police), and the press. Those guilty of error or omission usually keep quiet. She may have been convinced she was in the right, so the crossing must have not worked properly. Or she may have told her insurers that, to try to avoid liability - and one thing led to another, as it does (tangled webs etc.).

[TaplowGreen]

......or she may of course just been human and made a mistake?

[The Tall Controller]

The fact that she is human and made a mistake is accepted. I think its the language she has used in trying to blame anything but herself that has upset people. Regardless of the article's wording, hopefully it will make people reading it pay more attention which is what the lady involved is trying to do.

Personally I think level crossings should have standard traffic lights. I.e. Green, yellow red, followed by a few seconds before the barriers are lowered. But that's another story.

[Alan Pettitt]

Personally I think level crossings should have standard traffic lights. I.e. Green, yellow red, followed by a few seconds before the barriers are lowered. But that's another story.

There is a difference in meaning between "regular" traffic lights and alternate flashing lights used at level crossing, fire stations, airports, etc. The alternate flashing red lights mean that all road vehicles MUST stop, whereas normal traffic lights can be passed when red by emergency vehicles (with caution!).