(13-02-2011, 10:53 PM)interesting_signal Wrote: (13-02-2011, 10:24 PM)Peter Wrote: You seem to have mixed up two types of crossing use. One one hand you have very well described the operation of a miniature stop light crossing, but then on page 2, you talk about the need to phone the signaller because of the poor visibility.
One aspect that I think you have omitted is anything to do with the fact that the crossing is regularly used by livestock. On this theme, you have said a warning time of 40s without any reasoning. Perhaps think about these two points together and consider what you might provide.
Peter
Ok, I haven't explained it well, but my thinking was that the MSL are good enough for people using the footpath, but the time taken to get livestock etc. across could exceed the 40s warning time, so the signaller should be contacted to ensure sufficient time between trains to get the livestock across.
In a sense you are exactly right, but to avoid a mix up the answer is actually to have the two different types of crossing. Look at the attached which should give a clue re the different usages of the crossing.
[
Now added some photos of a real site (though the UWC is probably more for tractor than cattle) ].
I suggest you look at L3/SIG/30018 if that is available to you.
Page 13, section 4.12 is about footway and bridleway crossings. It specifies to the effect that
the sighting time shall be greater than the time required by the user to cross between the "decision points" on foot or horseback as applicable to category of crossing unless some additional protection provided
e.g. MSL, whistle boards, telephones.
I don't feel that the subsequent wording is entirely clear, but I think it means that the "decison point" at which the user decides whether to cross or stay in position of safety shall be taken as at least 2m from the nearest running rail for footpaths but no closer than 3m for bridleways.
Where MSLs are provided, the warning period shall exceed by at least 5 seconds the time to cross between decision points.
Looking at section 9.2 on page 103, it states:
minimum warning period (may need to be increased to give the 5seconds over the tiome needed to cross, as above)
a) 20seconds for footpath crossings
b) 30seconds for station crossings
c) 40seconds for UWC or bridleway crossings
Also re warning times, it has always struck me as odd to say the least how little warnng we give the public compared with the time that we now insist that rail staff are in a position of safetyy prior to the passage of the train.
I was once in Wales walking a line with COSS and 2 lookouts and left the track on the inside of a curve to determine whether or not a phone was provided at a certain footpath crossing. I discovered there was not, but when I asked the COSS who was on the far track whether it was safe to get back onto the track he said he was unable to tell me He stated that there was insufficient visibility for the lookout with him (on the outside track of the curve) to be able to give me enough warning- the advance lookout being ahead of us in the way we had been walking (rather than behind as would have been required). To have been "legal" I'd have had to take off the hard hat, orange wear, track boots and crossed the track as a member of the public from the inside of the curve which due to vegetation has ****er all visibility. In fact it was so poor that had I really been in the countryside off duty with noone having better visibility then I may not have ventured it- however we can't expect the general member of public to have an inkling of line speed or be aware quite how quiet trains can be.
I did report the crossing via CIRAS but never got any feedback.
Let us hope that there were whistle boards and that there would have been audible warning of the train's approach well before becoming visible, but it does beg the question about deaf people- nowadys perhaps there ought to be warning signs to ask users to stop talking on the mobile, turn off the ipod etc.
