2008 Q4 - Level Crossing upgrade

[dorothy.pipet]

This is a compilation of my attempt and a discussion in study group.

[PJW]

I think there was much relevant content here, but
a) a fair bit of it not sufficiently clearly directed to the question and b) probably too much time spent on discussing the options not likely to be viable.

From a railway safety perspective, it is correct that closure is the preferable option. Indeed, if there is existing abuse by the users, one approach may be to seek to obtain clear evidence of that, since this would weaken the users' case if the railway proposed closure and the users mounted a legal challenge to object to it. Hence CCTV recordings could be useful evidence.

Depending on the scenario, a bridge may not actually be out of the question, particularly if the crossing is for a livestock farm. Certainly the Welsh Highland with their relatively small trains have eliminated the need for several such crossings by constructing a "bridge" out of a short section of concrete pipe through which their trains pass and building up embankment ramps either side of it in the farmer's fields, making a payment for the consequential loss of use of a small area of land. In other cases the landower may well be tempted by a sufficiently large payment to surrender their legal rights completely.

Assuming however a crossing is to be retained and enhanced, then I don't think that any type of crossing which does not completely close the railway would likely to be tenable in most cases- since the use of the crossing would not potentially in future continue be limited to those with the right to utilise. Indeed there can often be animals which need to be herded across the railway or indeed grazing either side of it.


I think given the question wording, we need to consider the following primary hazards-

1a. Potentially inadequate warning time, particularly in late spring when vegetation growth can dramatically restrict visibility of approaching trains (assuming that crosssing of the type where the user simply has to decide for themselves if safe to cross)

1b. Users not utilising the any communication that is provided to the signaller in order to get permission to cross / miscommunication

2. Users leaving gates open after having used the crossing.

To an extent your answer did include suggestions for each of these, but I think would have been better if it had more clearly related potential solutions to the hazards.

I think I'd have assumed the majority of use by vehicle user. If crossing on foot there really is little reason to leave the gates open; you'd simply get through the one and close it, cross the track open the other and close that. One person driving a vehicle has to cross over the railway initially to open the far gate, then cross back and drive across, so is sorely tempted to then carry on and leave both gates open- saves them time on this trip and if they are still open on their return journey later on, then that is another bonus for them.
Most UW crossings where the vehicles or animals are involved would generally need to have phones to the signaller, unless line speed very low- I don't read the question as intending that sort of line as there tends not to be a great motivation to increase linespeed (and even if being increased elsewhere a local speed restriction could be retained around the crossing).

Despite this I think your answer should have mentioned Level Crossing Predictors as being a more cost effective manner in which to provide warning by red/ green lights.

Your answer did cover potentially detecting the manual gates in the signal aspects and discuss some of the disadvantages; indeed it may be that there aren't many signals on the line and hence train would be held a long way from the crossing. Probably better just to cause an alarm to the signaller; could be useful to know if gates ever opened without permission having been sought and that gates were indeed closed afterwards. Obviously could also be used to trigger a few minutes of video recording which would mean that could identify the offenders and once they knew that they were being observed and recorded their behaviour would probably improve anyway.

However I think the focus on the question was probably actually for POGO- Power Operated Gate Openers using which the user can open the gates both sides when on one side of the line and then close again from the far side having crossed. Firstly the user is far more likely to close as much less inconvenience; secondly it reduces risk for the conscientious user as they only cross the line once in their vehicle, rather than a total of five times (cross over and back to open gates prior to driving and then over and back again to close gates behind them).

Before the latest NR initiative in this respect (see NR/L2/SIG/11201/ModX42 of Sept 2011 for example), the NYMR certainly installed at least one set near New Mill, north of Pickering; indeed for very many years they have a set of hydraulic barriers at Levisham which possibly operate in the manner you have described (but I think don't automatically descend after time-I think that they are normally down, both sides are pumped up by the user on one side and can then be lowered again from the other side of the line but I have never seen them operated so cannot be sure).

Hence whereas your answer did consider many of the issues, I think it would have been better actually to have stated some particular assumptions as the basis on which you were to answer the question, rather than just in the initial section making a list of the various uncertainties. In fact you could have considered several different sets of cicumstances and determined the best option in each of the separate cases; this would probably have been the best approach.

I think that I would have made one such scenario lead to each of:
a) legal termination of the right to cross railway,
b) over bridge / underpass,
c) MCB-CCTV (or OD) with barriers kept down until specically requested by user,
d) POGO,
e) minor enhancements to the existing arrangement re LX predictor Red / green lights, telephone, gate detection into alarm, CCTV recording monitoring.

Could be presented as a form of flowchart with decision boxes.

Attachment shows some pictures for inspiration, including the NYMR implementation of POGO

This is a compilation of my attempt and a discussion in study group.

[PJW]

As if on cue, the RAIB has just published this report:
http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm...e_Farm.pdf

Attachment shows some pictures for inspiration, including the NYMR implementation of POGO

This is a compilation of my attempt and a discussion in study group.