Level crossing incidents at Sandy Lane and Yarnton Lane - merged posts

[whole diary]

[stebbo]

I know the crossing pretty well and I've always regarded it as safe provided drivers observe the signals. As one of the site's members says, level crossings are safe unless used in an unsafe manner.

If the car driver attempted to weave round the barriers then that's asking for trouble. I suppose the answer is always to install full width barriers

[JayMac]

Full width barriers will only be used if the crossing is monitored. Either locally (e.g. a signal box) or by a signalman viewing a CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) feed. They can then raise the barriers should a vehicle become trapped on the crossing.

The reason for the half barriers at automatic unmonitored crossings is so that they don't inadvertently trap a vehicle on the crossing. A vehicle's exit off the crossing is always clear. If you had full barriers at an automatic unmonitored crossing you'd have no way for vehicles to escape the crossing once the barriers are lowered.

[SandTEngineer]

Full width barriers will only be used if the crossing is monitored. Either locally (e.g. a signal box) or by a signalman viewing a CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) feed. They can then raise the barriers should a vehicle become trapped on the crossing.

The reason for the half barriers at automatic unmonitored crossings is so that they don't inadvertently trap a vehicle on the crossing. A vehicle's exit off the crossing is always clear. If you had full barriers at an automatic unmonitored crossing you'd have no way for vehicles to escape the crossing once the barriers are lowered.

Not quite true now.  There is a type of level crossing now called a MCB^▸ (Miniature Circuit Breaker)-OD (OD=Obstacle Detector).  This has full barriers but no CCTV system. The crossing is proved clear by radar detection.   It is essentially an automatic crossing with full barriers,  They are begining to be installed on the network and, despite a few teething problems, seem to be the way forward for high risk level crossings.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/pdf/reports/research/T729_rpt_final.pdf
http://www.signalbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3467

[stebbo]

But I'm sorry to say that if you instal half barriers you will always get the odd "clown" with occasionally predictable and sad results.

[BerkshireBugsy]

But I'm sorry to say that if you instal half barriers you will always get the odd "clown" with occasionally predictable and sad results.

I'm not sure that the description of a clown is suited to those who are intent on committing suicide but that is just my opinion

[John R]

Whilst I think we all have our views about those who dodge round the barriers at level crossings, I think it's safe to assume that the majority don't have any thoughts of suicide, but are simply reckless in not being prepared to wait. I think it's those who stebbo are describing as clowns. (Of course, in this case we must wait to hear the accident report, so I'm not making any suggestion as to what may have happened.)

[stebbo]

Apologies.

Those clearly intent on suicide - for whom I feel genuinely sorry - will always find a way and I guess there are easier ways of ending matters than looking for a half barrier level crossing. I suspect most of those who weave around the barriers are those who can't wait/don't think or are confused or intoxicated.

[devon_metro]

Surprised that some sort of obstruction detection device has not been fitted to level crossings, automatically reverting the signals protecting the crossing to danger if something is detected to be obstructing the crossing.

[BerkshireBugsy]

Apologies.

Those clearly intent on suicide - for whom I feel genuinely sorry - will always find a way and I guess there are easier ways of ending matters than looking for a half barrier level crossing. I suspect most of those who weave around the barriers are those who can't wait/don't think or are confused or intoxicated.

Agreed. As has been said on here before those intent on suicide will find a way. There have been occasions on early Tuesday morning where, at my local station, revellers have got of the train after a night out on the booze and have tried to climb over the lowered barriers. I think that at the last moment sanity prevels and they change their mind (or just can't manage it)

As a thought why is it not possible to have cameras which are activated when the orange lights start to flash and deactivate when the barriers are fully raised again? I guess cost is one of the factors.

[TonyK]

As a thought why is it not possible to have cameras which are activated when the orange lights start to flash and deactivate when the barriers are fully raised again? I guess cost is one of the factors.

I think also that the timescales involved in such incidents which can be measured in terms of a few seconds, would mean little improvement would be possible.

[stebbo]

Agreed. In my experience of unmanned level crossings, including the one at Sandy Lane incidentally, once the train strikes the treadles and initiates the red lights and barrier lowering there isn't time to then check the crossing and, if necessary, stop the train which is likely travelling at full speed.

The only way to do this is to have cameras so that the signalman can check the crossing is clear before he then clears the signals. This system is used just north of Cheltenham Spa and can cause huge delays and traffic bottlenecks especially if a northbound train is starting from Cheltenham as the train manager won't close the doors and signal the train away until the barriers are down, the signalman's checked the cameras and then cleared the starting signal - and the train then has to travel about three quarters of a mile from a standing start. If the train is coming south, the barriers have to be lowered way in advance.

Of course, I've seen the odd pedestrian think about chancing it at Cheltenham.

Again though, it all comes down to the way the crossings are used

[JayMac]

Surprised that some sort of obstruction detection device has not been fitted to level crossings, automatically reverting the signals protecting the crossing to danger if something is detected to be obstructing the crossing.

Not all crossings are protected by signals. Automatic Half Barrier Crossings are not normally interlocked with signals. This would require some major re-signalling and possibly increased barrier 'down' time at AHB crossings as the signalling block relevant to the crossing would have to be sufficiently far from the crossing to allow for train braking distances.

[BerkshireBugsy]

As a thought why is it not possible to have cameras which are activated when the orange lights start to flash and deactivate when the barriers are fully raised again? I guess cost is one of the factors.

I think also that the timescales involved in such incidents which can be measured in terms of a few seconds, would mean little improvement would be possible.

I agree with your reply but was thinking of the deterrant aspect. Certainly on the road near our hours there are a couple of gatsos which "encourage" drivers to stick to the speed limit. Of course, once the cameras are distant objects in the rear view mirror then the right foot kicks back in.

[stebbo]

Doubt you can excedd 30 mph weaving round half barriers so not sure what GATSOs would do

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

GATSOs are not used just as speed cameras. They are used at traffic lights and are linked to the lights so that a vehicle passing a red light will be caught. Just what is needed at these level crossings.