West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Come and volunteer on Swanage for 2018. You will only then start to understand the extent of the over simplification of this and the far reaching implications for every part of the Railway.

 

It's just the way people use words. Sometimes they use just 'automatic' instead of' automatically controlled' or, as you see here, just 'controlled'. It's usually because the writer is aware of the detail of what they are talking about but forgets that others reading such a statement don't have that 'insider' knowledge.

It's something I always have to keep in mind if I am writing an operation or maintenance manual. I have to be very careful because I know what I'm talking about and it is very easy to forget that the reader may not. If I am not careful those instructions can easily change into a sort of short-form set of instructions which omit the simplest of things because, to me, it's obvious what must be done whereas to the user, who is religiously following the instructions, one really simple step missed off those instructions can lead to hours of frustration.

 

I can see your point: I often find manuals with instructions that appear to resemble "open the box with the key that you will find inside it". However, in this case, I think "controlled" means "controlled by a human being", given these clauses in the SCC record of decision
"f. One area of significant concern is pedestrian usage. When the crossing was opened pedestrian usage was negligible, yet today is significant due to housing and all the retail development"... and
"h. Automatic crossings are rarely suitable for sites of high pedestrian usage."

 

Those are my thoughts, too. Unfortunately for the road users of Somerset, who will now have to wait a little longer for that bit of maintenance or improvement, the most important factor as far as SCC are concerned, appears to be that, should there be an accident at the crossing, none of the blame should attach to the designers of the crossing. Thus only the highest spec will do. It seems to be the same thinking that keeps street lights burning on a roundabout on an unclassified road. When they were installed, the road was the A303. Now the A303 runs elsewhere, but the street lights must remain, as if there were to be an accident at that roundabout, the engineer who ordered the lights to be taken down could be held liable.

 

The post was originally in the context of could service trains run without destroying the heritage side of the railway.

 

My reply is intended in the same spirit. Very much an issue Swanage wrestles with. Destroying is a strong word but what level of compromise are you willing to accept?

 

That's an attitude due to your age and upbringing and one I've spent 60 or so years trying to combat.

 

In the widest possible sense!

 

There is a crossing like this near me, on the Stockport to Buxton line, at Norbury Hollow. A man sits in a hut until he gets a signal whereupon he manually pushes a gate across the road before pushing a second opposite gate. Nothing automated or electrified at all (except his hut I hope. It’s difficult to see from the road!) This is to accommodate two passenger trains an hour, shortly to be four, and frequent freight trains from the limestone quarries.

 

I am not going to get into the level crossing debate save to say one thing. We live in what is called a representative democracy not a plebiscite. (You can blame Yorkshireman that I know the difference). The people of Somerset elect the representatives they choose, if you have a concern about anything and you are a resident of Somerset you can legitimately talk to your councillor, perhaps at a regular surgery. The one thing I do know is that nothing will be changed as a result of views expressed here. I m sure that, as a good council, SCC will consult widely on their proposals. Appropriate public comment is often sought on such matters and you should be able send in concerns via the SCC web site planning portal or by writing to SCC directly.

 

And the Council Taxpayers would have to pay the cost of removing said lights

 

I hear what you say and am glad you have been paying attention. Whilst I agree that few, if any of our representatives will view these pages it should not preclude discussion on the topics raised. Sadly SCC have made some very bad decisions in the past and need to be closely watched to avoid repeats. Despite employing professional staff mistakes can still occur. For example when the Somerset Highways designed a roundabout as part of a scheme to pedestrianise the Taunton town centre they proposed the wrong size that would not accomodate the largest lorries serving the major shops. It was only at the public enquiry stage when this was challenged. Initially the denied it but fortunately a member of the public was able to quote chapter and verse. After the lunch break an embarassed Highways employee confirmed the mistake and agreed to present revised plans the next day. He did have th good grace to come and apologise to me personally as well as the the inquiry Chairman. I was only by chance that I had read about a similar situation that knew what the error was.

 

There is no way, in 2018, that it would be possible to get regulatory approval to introduce such an arrangement, especially on a road as busy as Seaward Way now appears to be. Too many crossing keepers on Network Rail have been injured by motorists while working traditional gates. It's not fair to anyone (staff or volunteer) to expect them to walk out into the traffic to do that.

SCC and the WSR would have little or no choice: if anything is to change in the arrangements at Seaward Way, a full barrier crossing controlled remotely (ie by looking down the line) from Minehead box is the only realistic option. Even that is second best: the regulator's preference would be for closure and replacement by a bridge.

Stuart J

 

Sounds like the best option to me!

 

The existing Minehead box is too far from the crossing to operate the crossing by sight.

There are two options (1) CCTV, (2) Move / rebuild / build a new Box adjacent to the crossing.

Robin

 

I notice the Seaward Road crossing is protected by modern signalling and not semaphore so why would old style gates even be considered? I also see that the railway is renewing the ballast and other groundworks (courtesy WSR Wizard web site) either side of the level crossing so that must mean that the crossing renewal is on target to be done. Judging by the moss, in the photos, it seems to be a dampish sort of place and needed renewal. The photos, on the web site, do show how busy the PW gang are at present.

 

Post deleted

 

I know there have been injuries to crossing keepers in Kent over the last few years at manual worked gate level crossings.
It has led to a number of gated crossings on the Medway Valley line being replaced by full width barriers. They did not give rise to RAIB reports which can be researched.

The risk of injury / incident is lower with a bridge than a level crossing of whatever form. The advice from the RAIB for most LC incidents often seems to be replacement with a bridge.

For the WSR and SCC construction costs count against the option of a bridge. Perhaps the costs would be closer if the LC costs included maintenance, CCTV provision and annual exams for a notional 30 years life of the barrier equipment.

From a selfish railway enthusiast point of view it would be a different photographic vantage point!

Cheers, Neil

 

Just an observation from an outsider, but it does seem that this (like most other subjects in this thread) is being made rather hard work of. Over on the Broadway thread (yes, there are other threads!) it's recently been announced that the council is going to build our car park for us and pay for it (£650k) - great! Mithering about tax payers' money doesn't feature at all, we're all just delighted that it means that's £650k the railway doesn't have to find/can spend on something more interesting.

 

Technical question.
I've read all the SCC paperwork & related docs along with some RAIB research.
The one part of the 'full' barrier replacement crossing that is not clear to me is why the signalling & triggering systems are affected simply by adding the additional barriers.
If the train can trigger the existing barriers, why can't it trigger the new ones in the same manner?
Why do they have to be 'proven' down if the current (half?) barriers don't?

I'll go back & re-read the docs, but I don't recall CCTV monitoring being mentioned.