Another LC collision

buffy500 · Post by **buffy500** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:23 pm

What is a red light district camera ? (or is it an obvious thing )

andrewtoplis · Post by **andrewtoplis** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:59 pm

mattvince wrote: Perhaps high risk crossings (those that cannot be closed/replaced) should be protected by retractable bollards, similar to those shown in the oft-linked CCTV footage.

Speed sensitive bollards that come up if a car is not going to stop might work. Could also be activated by a car entering a 'zone' on the wrong side of the road to go round a half barrier. If this was set up correctly it could let people off the crossing if they are stuck but prevent people jumping them.

jbilton · Post by **jbilton** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:28 pm

Hi
There is another crossing round my way, which is lit and full barriers, because its in the middle of a village I believe.
The signalman is about a mile away, CCTV is used.
Seems to work OK, although there is the extra 5 Min's involved which I believe I've been told is required.
So in a 2 mile stretch you have fully manned fully lit, full barriers fully lit remotely controlled and an unlit unmanned AHB.
Oh and actually another mile down the track is a bridge, which of course is the ideal solution.
Now the bridge is original, its a single track road, and carries little road traffic, unless the crossings are out of action.
So presumably this was built for the railways convenience in the 19th century.... but we are now in the 21st century,the world has moved on.
Priorities need to change.
I think there are at best four passenger trains an hour on this line, carrying at most 50 people... just doesn't add up does it?
Cheers
Jon

bdy26 · Post by **bdy26** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:34 pm

What's the problem with simply making them full barrier crossings? Cost wise I would have thought the risk of a major derailment and the resultant costs in terms of NR liability to operating cos (which I doubt is insured, unlike third party liability) is beginning to outweigh the infrastructure costs. NR are banging on about these crossings being the biggest derailment risk.

Now nothing is going to stop a deliberate attempt, but it will pretty much stop the darwin award candidates who weave around AHBs.

jbilton · Post by **jbilton** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:48 pm

bdy26 wrote:What's the problem with simply making them full barrier crossings? Cost wise I would have thought the risk of a major derailment and the resultant costs in terms of NR liability to operating cos (which I doubt is insured, unlike third party liability) is beginning to outweigh the infrastructure costs. NR are banging on about these crossings being the biggest derailment risk.

Now nothing is going to stop a deliberate attempt, but it will pretty much stop the darwin award candidates who weave around AHBs.

Because they have to be manned then... and NR are not willing to pay.
The alternative is as I posted above a CCTV system... which has to be a cheaper solution.
The fatal flaw was allowing AHB.
I believe this was allowed because it was a public company BR at the time.
But now the railways are private.
No other private company(or private individual) has the right to block the Queens Highway, for as long as they feel like.
The other day a freight train derailed in Lincoln blocking the crossings for over five hours.(In BR days the longest was 2 hours because we had Lincoln Shed)
Absolute chaos for thousands of local and visiting people.Extra work for the local police.
Do the City Council get a penny compensation from NR...No
The private railways bring no benefit to the City of Lincoln.
Cheers
Jon

mattvince · Post by **mattvince** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:58 pm

I could find much to dispute in that Jon. For starters, the AHB was introduced by BR as a cost-saving measure when faced with Treasury spending restrictions. The safety element was intended to be self-policing to an extent, relying on the obedience of motorists to use the crossing correctly. It was also introduced in the 1960s, since then usage of the roads has increased.

The laws which permit the railway to obstruct the highway were part of the Act of Incorporation of the railway company concerned - permission which has been passed down to successors and not repealed or amended - something which would require Parliamentary time, and would also place an undue demand on the railway - for which subsidy might have to be provided. And in the case of the Lincoln derailment - is surely the same not true of a major multi-car pile-up blocking a major motorway for a number of hours? A jacknifed/overturned lorry on the M25 at 7am will cause more disruption to more people than a minor derailment in Lincoln. Both types of incident are 'needlessly' obstructing the highway. The time needed to clear the derailment is, no doubt, partly due to the requirement to investigate the accident properly.

This 'privatised' railway has abolished every level crossing between Euston and Preston on the main WCML, with, IIRC, one left to do in the Birmingham area, subject to HMG providing its share of the money.

Elojikal · Post by **Elojikal** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:22 pm

It'd probably be cheaper to replace every AHB with a plonked down pre-fab concrete overbridge.

allypally · Post by **allypally** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:46 pm

Maybe having a chest high solid metal block pop up that would total the car but protect the train would be a solution.

jbilton · Post by **jbilton** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:51 pm

Hi
I believe I posted the AHB was a BR invention, and I agree road traffic movements have clearly altered since.
That is why I posted the priorities need to change.
Acts of Parliament can and are changed, and should be when they are so clearly outdated.
I personally cannot see why any compensation would be forthcoming to any railway company.
I don't think a lorry 'jackknifing' on the M25 is the same at all as a train blocking the road, apart from they both cause disruption.
Remember blocking the High St in Lincoln also stops pedestrian access, because they removed the foot bridge a few years back because of costs.
Actually thinking about it I wonder whether NR could be sued under the Disable persons access?, as its a couple of miles detour to get wheeled access other than the flat cross.
Perhaps if NR were paying £650 a hour to the City Council the train would have been moved a bit quicker.
(Which I believe was the figure charged a couple of weeks back when we had to get the Sleaford line closed)
Posting that they have removed all the crossing on the WCML, only confirms to me that its technically possible. So the only reason not to is cost.
Cheers
Jon

danielw2599 · Post by **danielw2599** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:52 am

The AHBs were most likely removed from parts of the WCML in order to achieve 125+mph line speed. The maximum permissable speed on any line with AHBs is 100mph.

You know full well that the RAIB are required to carry out investigations after derailments and NR can't do Jack untill they have handed the scene back. So by your logic it should be the RAIB that pays the council.

In any case, the longer a line is closed the more money NR have to pay in compensation and other penalties.

And whats so different about a lorry jack knifing?

Tomnick · Post by **Tomnick** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:59 am

If anything, a jackknifed lorry would block the road until it was cleared. I was under the impression that, in this case, the barriers were quickly raised manually, despite the fact that the train had already passed the protecting signal - so the road wasn't blocked for too long at all.

jbilton · Post by **jbilton** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:33 am

Hi
The reason the jackknifed lorry is not the same is because if he is found to be negligence he can be charged with numerous offences, and costs can and are recovered from the operators insurance.
I was told the High St was blocked, I will admit I didn't need to go to the scene.Certainly traffic diversions were in operation for 5 hours.
I believe the accident was caused by faulty track....that is to say incorrectly maintained track.
Cheers
Jon

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:47 am

So, assuming the only reson for not replacing all the crossings is the cost, where would you like the money to come from? The crossings only "need" replacing because motorists are incapable of using them safely, so the cost should be borne by motorists - i.e. fuel duty, road fund license and the other ways that government likes to extract money from road users. As for the inconvenience caused by a level crossing - well, tough. The railway was there first.

danielw2599 · Post by **danielw2599** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:48 am

jbilton wrote:Hi

I believe the accident was caused by faulty track....that is to say incorrectly maintained track.
Cheers
Jon

Faulty track and incorrectly maintained track doesnt always go hand in hand you know.

Unless you know something different about this case???

danielw2599 · Post by **danielw2599** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:52 am

arabiandisco wrote:So, assuming the only reson for not replacing all the crossings is the cost, where would you like the money to come from? The crossings only "need" replacing because motorists are incapable of using them safely, so the cost should be borne by motorists - i.e. fuel duty, road fund license and the other ways that government likes to extract money from road users. As for the inconvenience caused by a level crossing - well, tough. The railway was there first.

I completly agree with that. AHBs ARE safe if used correctly so why should NR spend £millions replacing them all becasue of the mindless few? That money could be better spent elsewhere.