So, have safety standards increased; line speeds increased; visibility expectations increased; braking capabilities reduced?
I'm questioning the use of words such as inevitably and increasingly, esp without supporting evidence.
I'm hoping that crossing incidents have decreased, in number and severity, and would be pleased to know if stats support that.
Thanks.
I don't have a document to back this up I'm afraid, and I honestly don't know if one exists even internally to Network Rail, but in general I think that we can agree that the industry is now strongly averse to any new automatic half-barrier crossings, or even any existing unbarriered light controlled crossings, on all but the most minor of routes. In all of the examples I'm aware of the crossing sequence is slower with full barriers, and therefore the time necccesary to start the sequence is further in advance of an approaching train. It also depends on whether obstacle detectors or CCTV are in use, which one or the other will be if a crossing is being upgraded to automatic and is unstaffed. If a train is approaching a crossing at a relatively low speed, because for example it's a freight train which cannot achieve the permissible speed on that section of line, or because it's within about a mile of a station where some of the trains have called, you also have a lot of extra expense to try to minimise the crossing closure times by calculating the speed of the approaching train using yet more expensive safety critical equipment. I'm only aware of that happening at miniature stop light foot crossings, where pedestrians wouldn't respect the stop light if the signal were on for over 10 minutes, but I understand something similar can be used at vehicular crossings involving treadles.
Now of course, there are some solutions to the slower crossing cycles, such as a driver-operated manual open crossing, where the risk is very substantially lower because the train will be crossing at walking pace, and the closure time is very short. Obviously, however, that means the train actually has to stop before the crossing!
Any meaningful change to a crossing's use will trigger a new risk assessment. If the crossing risk goes up a category as a consequence, Network Rail are all but obliged to put mitigation in place, or refuse the change. If all of your options for mitigation have been used up, you need to close the crossing (for this read pay for a bridge) or, again, refuse the change. To do otherwise could put Network Rail at risk of corporate manslaughter charges should anyone's misuse of the crossing lead to loss of life or limb in the future.