Cotswold Line redoubling: 2008 - 2011

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

Welcome to the forum Doug.

[4101]

But in all honesty, Finstock is no Hanborough - the station isn't in the village, which is also smaller, and it isn't a handy parkway station for anywhere, whereas Hanborough is ideal for people travelling from Witney and Woodstock.

Yes I quite agree, my point is that even with these advantages, back when Hanborough only had one train each way it had few passengers. Finstock would not generate massive numbers of passengers under the best of circumstances but it could do better and have a useful role.

[willc]

But at the time when Hanborough had one train each way, so did a place the size of Pershore - in both cases it was patently absurd but Finstock just doesn't have the potential to justify more services - and many people use the railbus or drive to Charlbury, because everything stops there, especially if they are travelling beyond Oxford. The railbus even offers connections in and out of the halts trains there.

[stebbo]

Not the major road crossings, more a problem with the numerous unworked farm/foot crossings that proliferate the route from Moreton-Evesham.

Faced with a van on a farm crossing, I wouldn't have thought there's a lot of difference between an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) at 75mph and 90mph - witness the accident the other year.

[Not from Brighton]

The Ufton Nervet crash was at a 100mph half barrier crossing and the results were quite different to the Pershore minibus accident.

[IndustryInsider]

Not the major road crossings, more a problem with the numerous unworked farm/foot crossings that proliferate the route from Moreton-Evesham.

Faced with a van on a farm crossing, I wouldn't have thought there's a lot of difference between an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) at 75mph and 90mph - witness the accident the other year.

I agree, but I presume there's a H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) ruling on the speed at which a foot crossing has to have a telephone and I assume that was why the linespeed wasn't going to get increased? The accident to which WillC referred to was on a 95mph stretch of line which had a telephone.

[willc]

The Ufton Nervet crash was at a 100mph half barrier crossing and the results were quite different to the Pershore minibus accident.

Probably had a lot to do with the car at Ufton Nervet being rather smaller and going under the train, derailing the leading bogie. Momentum then carried the train on to the point for the facing down goods loop about 100 metres away, which caught the derailed bogie, twisted the power car over and caused the rest of the train to derail - that loop point was absolutely crucial in what happened to the train. Had it not been there, there was every chance the train would have stayed upright and come to a stop, as only the leading bogie was off the rails before the train reached the loop. Plus the car driver wanted to die and deliberately positioned the car square across the down line at the crossing.

The minibus between Evesham and Pershore, being rather larger, didn't go under, and was shoved out of the way by the train - which was running on the 95mph limit at the time - and flipped over and rolled, which was what caused all the injuries and deaths. The main impact was on the engine bay. See picture on this BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3050658.stm

There are a lot of these crossings in the Vale. The crossing involved in the 2003 accident had been misused on 15 other occasions since 1995, usually when the phone had not been used by the road-user - that's 16 safety breaches at just one crossing in eight years, and several resulted in near-misses. And it's not just minibuses that use them - try harvesters and planters - these things aren't small and could do a hell of a lot of damage if a train hit one.

[Btline]

All crossings like this on InterCity and secondary lines should be automated, with flashing lights, a siren, CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) linking to signalmen in the nearest box and full width barriers.

It is ridiculous that C21 Britain has crossings like this. Even small branch lines should have driver operated barriers.

[willc]

So are you prepared to stump up the money from your taxes or fares to pay for all this kit? Or a bridge at ^1m-^2m a go? There are 7,600 level crossings on the network - someone else may have a breakdown of the various categories. And there are plenty of ungated or user-worked gated crossings on other railways around the world - including the likes of the US and Germany.

At the Vale crossing where the accident happened, there is actually a small underbridge nearby capable of taking vehicles up to the size of a minibus, at a squeeze, or a Land Rover. There's another example between Bruern crossing and Shipton station, where a minor road squeezes under the line, but there is a boarded flat crossing at rail level for larger vehicles - which is very rarely used, if ever, as is the case for most farm crossings outside certain busy periods of the year, such as ploughing, planting and harvest. I can't see any reason why on earth they should need the level of protection you advocate.

In many cases, the farm crossings cut miles and miles off a journey by normal roads - that's why they are there in the first place. For example, look at the Evenlode Valley between Moreton-in-Marsh and the Wychwoods. Over those 10 miles, there are just three road overbridges, plus the tiny underbridge mentioned and Bruern level crossing. If your farm straddles the line - and several do - you don't want to be going miles around. There are actually two or three more overbridges that are exclusively for the use of farm traffic, though they appear to owe their existence more to the different ground levels either side of the tracks than any specific rail safety concerns.

[Don]

In addition to willc's comments,

All crossings like this on InterCity and secondary lines should be automated, with flashing lights, a siren, CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) linking to signalmen in the nearest box and full width barriers.

Network Rail is no longer putting in half-barrier systems, not because they are unsafe, but because the car driving public are stupid and irresponsible, so full barriers are seen as the way forward, but full barriers are controlled by a signalman and will always block the car highway for much longer before a train arrives.  I am hopeful that many of the footpaths (and hopefully farm crossings) that cross the railway will gain red "stop" and green "safe to cross" lights when the track is redoubled too.

It is ridiculous that C21 Britain has crossings like this. Even small branch lines should have driver operated barriers.

And this is one of the main reasons for the success of French style high speed lines - complete separation and no crossings at all.   But, in this country our government (regardless of colour), has not chosen to spend the large amount of cash required on high speed rail lines.

Farm crossings, were provided (with bridges) to keep the landowners happy when the railway was forced through their land - they needed to get to their fields on the other side.  Motorways have extra bridges.  But Btline is correct, they worked well in the slower pace of the steam railway, but really need removing now, however, like most things in this country, it seems like it will take a spate of accidents with multiple fatalities in order to provide the political will to do so.

For the record, when the red lights flash on a level crossing, this means stop.
Going past the red flashing lights can get you a fine and some points on your license, even if the barriers are not yet coming down. 

[devon_metro]

All crossings like this on InterCity and secondary lines should be automated, with flashing lights, a siren, CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) linking to signalmen in the nearest box and full width barriers.

It is ridiculous that C21 Britain has crossings like this. Even small branch lines should have driver operated barriers.

Or perhaps we could just ban the prats that seemingly are baffled by the concept of a level crosing from drivng?! It really isn't rocket science!

[Btline]

Unfortunately, irresponsible driving will not go away!

Willc, I am against removing crossings and building road bridges - a fully gated barrier is enough.

As to the cost - exactly how much profit do TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) make? And perhaps the gov should invest in the railways a bit more! (like in other countries)

[paul7575]

Unfortunately, irresponsible driving will not go away!

Willc, I am against removing crossings and building road bridges - a fully gated barrier is enough.

As to the cost - exactly how much profit do TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) make? And perhaps the gov should invest in the railways a bit more! (like in other countries)

Crossings, like any other Network Rail infrastructure, are not the TOCs responsibility.

Paul

[willc]

Network Rail has a level crossing policy at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/4424_Level%20Crossing%20Policy.pdf

It includes the detail that about 1,500 crossings are on public highways, the rest of the 7,000-plus are farm crossings, footpaths and bridleways, or private roads.

[James_H]

Going back to the topic discussed a few pages back, is it fair to say that Combe and Finstock stations are completely pointless and are only still open for political reasons? 

If you lived in either, surely you'd just drive to Hanborough/ Charlbury and park there to give yourself some flexibility in terms of what time you can come back...?