WLLR level crossings

not only in Eastern Europe Western too (Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal , Austria and so on.........) continental europeans can't understand the paranoid, pathologic british obsession with over security!(HSE, ORR and so..)
Can we have some explanations about this stupending state of mentality please?(salted air, downgraduation of your formerly excellent bacon, too much football and sit coms on tv..?.........)
regards
noel

 

Just about anywhere other the the UK.
Nobody wants to see staff at the WLLR endangered while going about their duties but IMHO an AHB crossing is overkill.

 

Does the British obsession about railways being dangerous (which they are if you don't take care) arise from the death of an MP called Huskisson at the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830? Even allowing for the Brits being a bit neurotic, surely there is a difference between the West Coast main line crossing the M6 and a light railway with usually about four trains a day each way crossing a minor road to a village? A warning to road users to watch out would suffice in a more common sense culture.

I recall travelling in Turkey in 1984; a request to ride on the footplate of a steam loco was readily granted without even needing a risk assessment and off we went. The line was unfenced and sadly we hit a sheep - the shepherd was nearby and I learned from the ensuing verbal exchange some Turkish words that I couldn't find in my phrasebook! I won't say exactly where or when in case a Turkish elfansafety bureaucrat or ambulance chaser (perhaps by now Turkey has these twin afflictions, I hope not) is reading this.

 

Having looked at the Google Street view maps I can see the issues with the crossing, the view of either the train or road vehicles is obstructed by the hedges on both sides and the gradient on the road gives rise to issues with braking, especially in poor weather conditions. The ORR has recently produced new Guidance on Level crossings http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/level_crossings_guidance.pdf well worth a read.

 

In answer to some of the posts above, the reason we don't have open crossings and have a developed H&S legislation is because we have become an advanced society.
we realize, for example, that a large proportion of the population don't have a developed sense of danger: the young, the old, those not normally exposed to risk, the foolish, those who are suffering from mental stress (permanently and temporary) and those of us who sometimes are in a hurry and occasionally forget where we are. Note the number of people on their mobiles, crossing busy roads, completely oblivious to the danger: these are ordinary people. I venture to guess the proportion of the total population the above groups represent but it's over 50% - 30m people..

We as an advanced society have determined to protect these people from danger and the risk of death or accident. We do this for a number of reasons:

To prevent the pain and anguish caused to victims, their families and the other parties (Train drivers for example). In the case of death or serious accident this can affect people for the rest of their lives and can destroy families and relationships

To fulfill our moral obligations to our people and to strive generally to make people's lives more pleasant and safer than previous generations

To set the bar for others to follow so that their populations can benefit from improved safety as above

To save the medical and other costs involved resulting from accidents: these include direct hospital care and medicines, sometimes long term. Legal and insurance costs, the cost of long-term disability benefits for victims and the loss of income tax to the state when the victim cannot work for the rest of his/her life.The loss to the country of the value the victim would have contributed if the accident hadn't happened. In the case of younger people with a long life ahead of them, these costs are huge. We could be talking about half a million pounds or more for a young person disabled for life.

The cost of safety measures pale into insignificnce when compared to the above and the decision to implement them is a 'no brainer'.

The fact is, level crosings are not idiot proof and therfore unsafe to some degree. The economic argument alone dictates the installation of full locking gates including the pedestrian gates.

I have been staggered to read some of the posts above deriding H&S rules: The authors obviously don't have the mental compass to see the issues here: perhaps they should go and live in Romania etc for a couple of years which might bring them to their senses..

 

Do you write for the Grauniad?

 

I do not deride H&SE policy, as a qualified risk assesor I agree with it as it allows 'acceptable risk', I deride unqualified persons implementing rules & policy claiming "it's H&S" when it is fear of being sued.
ORR has stated that the crossing is dangerous, fine, then lets see them implement the same rule at several unprotected crossings in the preservation world that have had more colisions in the past ten years than the W&LLR has had in the past twenty.

 

If approach speed to this crossing is a problem, would speed humps be a low cost way of slowing the traffic before it reaches the crossing?

 

why Romania? Germany, Sweden , Spain, Italy are not "advanced societies"? the "nanny state" british version is a society where people are deresponsabilized, infantilized...........I remember Britain railways in the 60'S: no barriers-or so few-,no Hi-Vi's, no watch dogs with caps on platforms, enthusiasts who wandered on tracks (as in Germany now!!!)not silly HSE paranoia everywhere , free and RESPONSIBLE people and no more accidents than now! even less!........One of the reasons which explain my lovee of your country WAS your liking for freedom (Habeas Corpus, Bill of Rights and so on...)but since about 20 yeras Britain is gradually transforming in an orwellian society!Trance also and a lot morre quickly and deeply!) sad! very sad!
regards
noel

 

At last a bit of common sense

 

Let me guess - You're a Health and Safety "Adviser"

 

A very dangerous expression. It really amounts to no more than an attempt to give an artificial boost to "in my opinion"! All too often it is used merely to justify commonplace attitudes

Now, having got that thought out of the way, "in my opinion" the gated crossing at Castle Caereinion is something whose time has come. Yes there is a capital cost. Yes there are maintenance implications. However some idiot crashed his car into a train in plain view at New Drive Crossing and the obvious thought is that if said idiot could fail to spot a socking great steam loco which has just blown a long blast on the whistle he could easily hit some poor sap of a fireman waving a red flag which has as much legal force as the Jolly Roger. So things have been looked at and requirements on some crossings have been relaxed whilst those at Castle are being strengthened.

Many years ago I witnessed a flagman at Castle having to leap for the side of the road because a vehicle would not stop. Not nice for the person concerned.

I would draw a parallel with the early days of the W&LLR when tea was dispensed at Llanfair but there were absolutely no sanitary facilities. Those in dire need were directed to a friendly garage just up the road or to the public loos up in Llanfair. Unbelievable now and it had to be sorted out whilst in time these facilities were thought themselves to be sub-standard and were replaced in turn. In other words heads must not be stuck in sand heaps and the railway must adapt to changing circumstances. It is just the same with Castle crossing.

 

What's common about sense?

It's been said before, on here I think, and worth repeating. I am surprised that any of the Level Crossings on the WLLR are considered requiring of gating, but don't know enough to comment properly. It's a shame as it will detract from the railway's ambience, but only for a brief moment on an hour's journey.

 

Only a camera on the crossing will stop some, these days I have lost count of how many people only stop at lights if the car in front does, its just like smoking used to be, it will never happen to me attitude.

 

I don't regard Britain as an 'advanced society'. The streets of many less affluent countries, such as Turkey, are at least safe for innocent people to walk at night, or during the day, for that matter.

Rather than eliminating (or trying to eliminate) all risks arising from foolish behaviour, such as shutting oneself off from the outside with a Walkman personal stereo blasting out one's eardrums, it would be better if the authorities in this country paid attention to making the streets safe from crime.

 

Perhaps the answer would be to ask the W&LLR staff who flag trains across the level crossing. If they say that these should be gated for safety reasons, then fair enough.

 

The only thing that causes me to raise an eyebrow is the apparent need for an automatic gated crossing.

I see it as quite sensible to remove the need for a crew member to stand in the middle of the road.
I can see it being desirable to have gates/barriers across the road prior to, and during, the train's crossing.

What I struggle to see is why the gates/barriers can't be closed and opened manually, be that traditional swing out gates or counter balanced drop down barriers.

 

What I struggle to see is why it should make any difference if the barriers are closed manually or automatically. Fully automatic gates give the great advantage of avoiding te need to restart a train on curving 1 in 32, which can be fun!

Whatever the arrangement adopted the scene will alter which is sad on one level. However, as I inferred in a previous post, harrumphing against change when the time has come for this to be inevitable is not very helpful.

 

From a safety of the crossing aspect, neither do I - but on a more pressing practical side, an automatic system will probably have to be bought in as a finished system from an external contractor at huge cost, whilst a manual system could be fabricated to an approved design of barrier in-house for significantly lower cost. An automatic system will need a supply of electricity to run it (assuming the electric motors used to operate the barriers would flatten a battery based system faster than a solar/wind generator could recharge it), and bearing in mind the location I assume this will cost a pretty penny to be installed by the electricity company. A manual system would obviously not need this, or if flashing warning beacons were also desired then those probably could be run from a battery based system. An automatic system will have ongoing costs associated with it, not only an electricity bill but presumably more in the way of checking to ensure it is still functioning properly, and the potential for more expensive repairs and maintenance etc.

In short, I would have thought the costs to install and run an automatic level crossing will be significantly more than it is a manually operated system. Presumably the ability to restart a train on a curving 1 in 32 hasn't been beyond the train crew's abilities for the last 109 years, and I doubt the passengers are going to be too fussed about arriving at their destination a couple of minutes earlier through not needing to stop at the crossing either.

Clearly if it's blindingly obvious that there are no differences in cost between installing and running an automatic crossing compared to a manual one, then an automatic one with it's associated shorter journey time and removed need to stop the train is the preferable solution. Personally I would have thought given the low frequency of low speed trains crossing a minor 'B' road, a manually operated crossing would have been more appropriate whilst still serving the same safety function. Given the comments on this thread it would seem those at the railway are only too keen to splash the cash on an altogether more sophisticated system which they feel is much more suited to the situation - ultimately it's their money, let 'um spend it how they like. ...but given all the reports in the local press over the last few days I get the impression the railway doesn't have the money.

 

Of course nobody "wants" to spend a lot of money on an installation here and you can be assured that it will be as straightforward as will meet the purpose. I merely pointed out that a fully automatic system would have operational advantages. If we end up with a system where the train stops and the fireman dismounts to insert some sort of key then so be it.

This location was recognised as awkward back in the 1900's when it was the only crossing where gates were required. Time passes and considerations change. There is no advantage in a stubborn, dare I say gricerish, refusal to recognise this.

(Again this post is no way on behalf of the W&LLR)