Revilo
Member
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 281
Idiotic behaviour. But is it actually illegal to cross when the lights are red on a footpath level crossing? Obviously it is for highway level crossings.
Idiotic behaviour. But is it actually illegal to cross when the lights are red on a footpath level crossing? Obviously it is for highway level crossings.
In what way in europe specifically? Faster, heavier more frequent trains? Stazi police waiting?
Stupid as they are, I'd rather have these impatient idiots crossing illegally infront of my train anyday ...than an impatient idiot driving a 70mph 2-tonne metal box crossing illegally.
I don't know if this exists already?Idiotic behaviour from the crossing users. Perhaps network rail should install electromagnets to lock the gate when the red light shows (with emergency release buttons on the rail side) (that is the assumption nothing like that already exists on those crossings)
But I suspect those are not the only crossings to have near misses as people make use of foot crossings on walks/rides in their local areas, especially on popular routes (that one near Newhaven springs to mind)
but we do "chuck it all in"
In both cases there is over 8 seconds between the last cyclist clearing the track and the front of the train arriving at the crossing. Assuming the train brakes were applied at the point when that cyclist was actually crossing the line, then there would have been at least 4 seconds clear if the train had continued without braking at all.Both units came to a stand just on the crossing. I'm sure there will be someone who could calculate the time/distance of all parties involved.
That’s the differentiation I was trying to make. “Chucking it all in” is pressing a button or moving a handle from one notch to another. It isn’t quite as dramatic as doing an emergency stop in a car, which as we both know will stop in rather shorter than a train.
To me, “slamming on” the brakes implies that a train driver can do much to avoid the situation, which in reality they can’t.
If someone runs across a crossing whilst a train is on the immediate approach, unless the train is already travelling very slowly, anything a train driver can do is likely to make very little difference in practice.
In both cases there is over 8 seconds between the last cyclist clearing the track and the front of the train arriving at the crossing. Assuming the train brakes were applied at the point when that cyclist was actually crossing the line, then there would have been at least 4 seconds clear if the train had continued without braking at all.
In both cases there is over 8 seconds between the last cyclist clearing the track and the front of the train arriving at the crossing. Assuming the train brakes were applied at the point when that cyclist was actually crossing the line, then there would have been at least 4 seconds clear if the train had continued without braking at all.
It's definitely possible a bicycle under the front wheels could derail a train at speed.I suppose at least with a cyclist no one else is going to die if it all goes wrong...
It's definitely possible a bicycle under the front wheels could derail a train at speed.
Not once you've accounted for obstacle deflectors and the light construction of cycles.
If a train can slam through a tree, tractor or car at speed and be fine a bike is no problem.
The problem with a bike is it's lots of spindly bits held together with some very tough bits and the soft bits can get deformed no problem but hardened steel shafts at the correct angle can lift a wheel set. Trees etc. tend to present a blank face to a unit. The process of derailment is a very complex one to say the least.
I know what you mean, but that isn't the point. Any driver who has been involved in a fatality will tell you. There's also the signaller answering the Railway Emergency Call (REC), or the MOM / Emergency services who have to respond to the site.I suppose at least with a cyclist no one else is going to die if it all goes wrong...
I know what you mean, but that isn't the point. Any driver who has been involved in a fatality will tell you. There's also the signaller answering the Railway Emergency Call (REC), or the MOM / Emergency services who have to respond to the site.
We've had some recent trespass / near miss incidents involving people at foot crossings in the my route area. One mitigation has been to put up additional signage in Eastern European languages to highlight the dangers of misusing the crossings.
Out of interest, has it ever happened that a bicycle has derailed a train?
They could both be right.Oh I know, just the dark way I like to think. I know they are no fun for anyone involved but the less death the better.
On one of my routes we're in the process of having three heavily misused crossings (by cars, bikes and pedestrians) being replaced with full barriers and an R/G foot crossing. I'm sure the foot crossing will see exactly the same amount of misuse and there will probably be complaints that there is no warning of approaching trains now the whistle board that the same locals have been complaining about is gone.
Meanwhile Network Rail are in a constant fight with a local council at another station on the same line because of massive misuse issue by (mainly) non passengers at a station barrow crossing which Network Rail claims (correctly) is private land and want to close whereas the council (incorrectly) claim is an essential right of way.
Crossing misuse is a real bugbear of mine.
Agree, the fact its on private land does in no way preclude it being a public right of way, and like a lot of footpaths it becomes very messy to resolve if in dispute.They could both be right.
Unfortunately the resolution might only happen after a fatality
Agree, the fact its on private land does in no way preclude it being a public right of way, and like a lot of footpaths it becomes very messy to resolve if in dispute.
Out of interest, has it ever happened that a bicycle has derailed a train?
Which is a bad idea, because if someone was trapped on the inside they wouldn't be able to get out.The barriers could be made stronger, so one could not climb over or duck under them, and they could close sooner.
+2: makes driving a bit more unattractive
I have not heard of it happening.Out of interest, has it ever happened that a bicycle has derailed a train?
Worth saying at this point that cows can and have derailed trains. Polmont being a particularly spectacular event.I have not heard of it happening.
What I will say is that in the 90's I was on a 153 on the Newquay branch and we ran over 2 cow's. Unit remainded on the tracks, 1 cow dead, other had to have a vet called to be put out of it's misery. Unit unable to move as driver couldn't release brakes.
So in a nutshell I'd say it's highly unlikely a bicycle could derail a train, although it might disable the train and make it unable to move by itself.
Indeed they have, and yes it was.Worth saying at this point that cows can and have derailed trains. Polmont being a particularly spectacular event.
The simple solution to that was posted above - a 'crash bar' that's only accessible from the inside and allows the gate to be opened.Which is a bad idea, because if someone was trapped on the inside they wouldn't be able to get out
This event was, but the discussion had moved on to crossing abuse generally.Also I thought this was a foot crossing, so I don't see what link this has to driving?
There's only one thing that can be done about impatient crossing users, regrettably: close the crossing. Drivers could be perhaps dissuaded by imposing a much heavier fine and more penalty points (up to £10,000 + 10 points?), but walkers and cyclists are unlikely to worry about punishment as they will think there's such a low chance of being caught it's not even a risk.I mean the barriers on the side going in to the crossing could be stronger, not the leaving side. The time between barriers closing and train arriving could be longer. Not sure what could be done about stupid impatient drivers, cyclists, walkers.