Level Crossings

[danielw2599]

It is a good few minutes for some crossings.

Star Lane in Wokingham is timed at being down for about 25minutes each hour - this based on 2 trains in each direction per hour.

But is that a AHB though or a full barrier crossing?

[gswindale]

I think it is a full barrier (2 barriers on each side of the road) crossing.

I know I got bored trying to guess which direction the train was coming from on Sunday (engineering works made it impossible to tell!)

Still far too long - particularly as somebody wants to run extra services along that line to Heathrow.

[Tomnick]

I read somewhere that the limit for a AHB crossing to the train is 4 minutes? This was quite a while ago so I could be wrong

You're not thinking of AOCL/ABCL crossings, are you? Once an AHB has 'struck in', it will continue to operate until either the train passes or it's taken on local control (which makes sense, as the driver receives no indication that it is continuing to operate or otherwise). An AOCL/ABCL, on the other hand, will only operate for a certain period of time (thought it was usually closer to two minutes) before the drivers white light will stop flashing, followed shortly by the road traffic signals.

[ralph0chadkirk]

I may be - as I said it was a while ago now.

The barriers at my station go down, then 3 minute wait and then the train comes. I don't know which type they are (and yes, I am sad enough to time them!)

[Tomnick]

If you tell me the station, I'll tell you the crossing type . (Quail is your friend ). I'd strongly suspect that it's a controlled crossing of some sort, whether worked locally or by CCTV - an AHB certainly wouldn't be designed to be down that long on a regular basis (it'd have stopping/non-stopping controls if its operation was likely to be extended by trains stopping at the station). A CCTV crossing or similar, on the other hand, and as pointed out previously, needs to be down that long to ensure that the protecting signal is cleared in time to give the driver greens throughout.

[ralph0chadkirk]

I think CCTV, but then the local box is just past the station and would be able to see it.

My local is Farnham.

[Tomnick]

It is indeed CCTV! Although the box looks to be fairly close (16 chains, according to Quail - about 350 yards), that's almost certainly not close enough to have a clear, unobstructed view of the crossing, especially in bad visibility. Just as a more 'extreme' example, East Holmes (R.I.P.) box in Lincoln has a CCTV crossing much closer to the box than Farnham's - you can see the crossing (or at least the road) less than 100yds away in the background of this photo (from http://www.tillyweb.biz).

[thenudehamster]

Apologies for the late response - this thing called 'work' keeps getting in the way.

To reply to daniel2599's question about four-gate crossings, I mean the standard old steam-era crossing as used on the S&C in MSTS. Four actual gates that closed across the road and blocked it entirely. Level crossing accidents were almost unknown in this country until the authorities in their wisdom did away with gated crossings and introduced half-barriers. The authorities, as usual, failed to extrapolate the stupidity of drivers; if you leave a gap that someone could drive through, some idiot WILL drive through it.

The problem with flashing red lights is that they are so rarely operational on roads that people do not know what they mean. Even when they are operated, the experience of most people is that it's to allow an emergency vehicle to exit its station. In itself, ignoring that is not inherently dangerous, though it is discourteous. Using the same lights as on a level crossing was a mistake - because to ignore the lights at a crossing can be fatal - and not just to the idiot who ignores them - but as usual the idiot motorist extrapolates in his favour.
Crossings such as Wokingham and David Lane, which I mentioned in my earlier post, are controlled by a system linked to regular traffic lights, and people obey traffic lights with a much higher degree of compliance than they do flashing crossing lights. If you don't believe me, next time you get to a narrow bridge controlled by lights, watch the traffic. People do not jump the lights, even if they can SEE that the road is clear. Level crossing lights do not mean STOP to the average motorist, so they need to be replaced with something that does. Set up a regular traffic light - and put the flashers on the same pole if you like - and I'll lay odds that the incidence of light-jumping drops dramatically. Add a standard red-light camera and an automatic 6-point penalty and you'll eliminate the problem almost entirely. ALL crossings should be linked to signals, and gated crossings would also eliminate the likes of the Ufton Nervet accident. Leave a car on a gated crossing and the gates can't close. No closed gates, no green signal, no accident. Period.

And I know it will cost money to do it, but no line with a running speed of greater than 60 mph should have level crossings at all, because to stop a train from much over 60 mph takes so long that the crossings would be closed for longer than they're open - and if it means closing a few crossings and giving motorists a slightly longer journey, so what? They have no compunction in doing it on dual-carriageways to 'aid traffic flow' so how about doing it to save lives?

[Tomnick]

Barry,

A comprehensive and well-written post, but I've got to take issue with one or two points.

Firstly, I'd disagree that the flashing red lights are a problem. I'd count myself as an average sort of driver (albeit from Lincolnshire, over-populated by level crossings - but my views still stand now that I live in the Midlands!), yet I've come across flashing reds at level crossings many, many more times than I've come across them at fire stations (in the last year, I think I've probably been stopped by them at lifting bridges two or three times, but not once at a fire station!). From my observations, motorists generally abuse level crossings in one of two ways - those who take a chance at getting through immediately after the sequence starts but before the barriers drop (no different to the "amber gamblers" at ordinary road junctions, and not a tremendous danger at LCs, at least in the first couple of seconds), and those who deliberately weave through the barriers (the real danger!). I'm sure that, in the latter case, if they're determined enough to ignore the warning signs, a barrier, flashing lights and (to anyone with half a brain) a very obvious danger, then changing the flashing reds to a normal traffic signal will not make the slightest difference. They've obviously assessed the risks in their own funny way, and they probably perceive that the risk of weaving around the barrier (where they'll be on the running line for a couple of seconds and then hopefully clear before the train arrives!) is less than, say, trying to get across a narrow bridge against the flow of traffic (where they'll almost certainly meet an oncoming vehicle).

As much as it'd be ideal for all crossings to be full-barrier*, that'd require supervision by a signalman, increasing the operating costs considerably. I appreciate that it's difficult to justify putting profits before safety, but some lines would probably have closed by now without automatic crossings (the Boston - Skegness line, with its numerous AHBs, being a good example - reduced to a single shift to keep costs down before conversion of most crossings) - the resulting shift to road transport would almost certainly lead to more accidents and deaths on the "dangerous" roads locally. How far do you go to save a life - especially that of someone who has chosen to take a big risk?

I'm not sure of the exact figures nationally, but most AHBs that I've come across are on lines no faster than 60/70mph anyway (they're not permitted above 100mph), with full-barrier crossings being used instead. Incidentally, you mentioned the additional delay with full-barrier crossings (as the barriers have to be down and the crossing proved clear before signals can be cleared - which must be done before the driver reaches the first restrictive aspect if the train is not to be delayed) - the lack of that delay is one of the benefits of AHBs, at least to the impatient sort of person who causes the LC problems in the first place!

I agree that 'red light cameras', and stiff penalty if caught, would be a big deterrent (indeed, such cameras are used at some crossings, though I don't know if the penalty is sufficiently stiff!) - personally, I think that's the best route to go down, along with some more education of the dangers of level crossings. They're almost perfectly safe if used correctly!

Tom

* - gated crossings are almost certainly a thing of the past - the mechanism was/is complicated, slow and not usually suitable for working remotely (the exception being one or two sets of power-worked gates, because the gates were too heavy to work manually rather than to allow them to be worked remotely), and they offer no real benefit over full-barrier crossings, which must be observed to be clear before signals can be cleared anyway.