Ban on building level crossings

[Annetts key]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the sign is the command to stop. The lights are a warning. If I'm not mistaken the sign is present all the time, even where there aren't lights and/or barriers.

The Highway Code says:

Some crossings have flashing red road traffic signals; these mean STOP (and this applies to pedestrians too). A steady amber light shows before the red lights begin to flash, as at ordinary road traffic signals; this means STOP unless it is unsafe to do so.

Link to source

Some people’s understanding of what things mean may not have been fully correct in the first place. Especially for older drivers who did not have the separate theory test that is now used. If they were never asked the correct questions, they may have passed their test even though they did not have a full understanding of some elements of the Highway Code.

It’s also possible that some peoples memories have changed, and hence don’t give the full correct answer. Especially if poor practice has become normal for them. If poor practice has become normal, its kind of self reinforcing. That’s how I’ve always done it (even though it may not be true) so it must be right.

This is why feedback is important to animals including humans. If there is no feedback, then the learning system no longer works correctly, and poor/bad habits form. Our memories don’t stay the same over time.

Ideally feedback should be positive for good responses as well as negative for continued bad responses. With the emphasis on encouraging the correct response. Which should of course get positive feedback.

If I was to get an old VCR out and put it in front of someone, how many could set the timer to record a TV programme? {Yes, I know there aren’t any analogue TV transmissions in the U.K. anymore, but the VCR does not care about that}.

Similarly, for an old analogue cellphone, how many people could remember how to use one?

 

[Falcon1200]

This is taken from a HSE Publication, so I would say it validates the suggestion that not all drivers understand how to respond. Taken at face value, a 50% failure to understand the correct response to a wig-wag signal, as compared to all responding correctly to a road traffic light is quite a serious safety finding.

Were those drivers who seemingly did not understand the correct response to a wig-wag signal asked what they thought the correct response actually was ? ie What did they think flashing red lights on both sides of the road were there for ?

 

[norbitonflyer]

I think they may or may have been used to close roads very close to airport or airfield runways when a large aircraft was due to take off or land.

No maybe about it! (A15 at RAF Waddington, Lincolnshire)

 

[Railsigns]

No maybe about it! (A15 at RAF Waddington, Lincolnshire)

And the A970 has wig-wags where it crosses the end of the runway at Sumburgh Airport in Shetland.

 

[Bald Rick]

Luton airport has them! (Pic from googlemaps street view).

 

[Meerkat]

If people really dont understand what the flashing red lights are for then the conclusion should be that regular retesting, at least of the theory part, should take place, not that the lights should change!
But I am just not having it, its just a desperate excuse - people refuse to stop because they don't want to, and because they know they will almost certainly get away with it. Put a yellow camera box up and I bet the understanding of flashing lights miraculously improves. It goes wrong when the drivers judgment isnt as good as they think.

I have to admit having done it as a student, on a bike. I used to cycle commute across the Canley crossing before it closed. You could be stuck there for ages, and multiple trains, so I quickly learned how far away I could be when the lights started and still get through with a surge (when carrying an essay with a hard time deadline I did push it and ended up ducking under the far gate as it came down.)
I did it because I didn't want to wait, and I knew I would get away with it. Personally I wouldn't do it in a car - you can make yourself pretty small on a bike if it all goes wrong so have a lot more leeway, and with a car the consequences for other people are potentially disastrous.
You see the same thing happen at traffic lights - the locals know how soon the other lot get their go so know how much they can jump the lights - and you see it at pedestrian crossings - the red man appears but the pedestrians know the cars dont get an immediate green so keep starting to cross.

 

[najaB]

If people really dont understand what the flashing red lights are for then the conclusion should be that regular retesting, at least of the theory part, should take place, not that the lights should change!
But I am just not having it, its just a desperate excuse - people refuse to stop because they don't want to, and because they know they will almost certainly get away with it. Put a yellow camera box up and I bet the understanding of flashing lights miraculously improves.
...
You see the same thing happen at traffic lights - the locals know how soon the other lot get their go so know how much they can jump the lights - and you see it at pedestrian crossings - the red man appears but the pedestrians know the cars dont get an immediate green so keep starting to cross.

The problem isn't that people don't understand that the signs and lights mean stop. It is that they don't think the signs and lights apply to them, at that moment.

 

[Meerkat]

The problem isn't that people don't understand that the signs and lights mean stop. It is that they don't think the signs and lights apply to them, at that moment.

I'm still not buying it - they know, its really obvious, they just don't want to wait.
Anyone who cant work out that the flashing lights, signs, lines, barriers are telling you to stop probably shouldn't be allowed out on a bike, let alone in a car!

 

[najaB]

I'm still not buying it - they know, its really obvious, they just don't want to wait.
Anyone who cant work out that the flashing lights, signs, lines, barriers are telling you to stop probably shouldn't be allowed out on a bike, let alone in a car!

We're in agreement here! Like I said - they know that the lights and signs mean that *other* people should stop. Or they know that the lights and signs mean that they should stop, but they're in a hurry so this one time doesn't matter.

 

[The exile]

I'm still not buying it - they know, its really obvious, they just don't want to wait.

Anyone who cant work out that the flashing lights, signs, lines, barriers are telling you to stop probably shouldn't be allowed out on a bike, let alone in a car!

The one justifiable confusion I could accept is that in the other situation I can think of where traffic signals in this country show flashing lights (various pedestrian crossings) they are an indication of “ your time’s nearly up). Not a particularly good excuse, I agree, as “red = stop” should be about the most ingrained thing in any driver’s head!

 

[Inversnecky]

We're in agreement here! Like I said - they know that the lights and signs mean that *other* people should stop. Or they know that the lights and signs mean that they should stop, but they're in a hurry so this one time doesn't matter.

Is that sort of like how I know that red traffic lights mean other people need to stop, but not me?

 

[Meerkat]

I'm still not buying it - they know, its really obvious, they just don't want to wait.

The one justifiable confusion I could accept is that in the other situation I can think of where traffic signals in this country show flashing lights (various pedestrian crossings) they are an indication of “ your time’s nearly up). Not a particularly good excuse, I agree, as “red = stop” should be about the most ingrained thing in any driver’s head!

How many incidents actually fit the confusion excuse anyway? Its hard to say you were confused if you have swerved round the barriers! At the very least you should see flashing red lights as some kind of warning and therefore already be slowing down when the quickly following movement of the barriers gives you a pretty big clue that they might just want you to stop!

 

[LondonExile]

My biggest complaint about Wigwags is that it doesn't seem to be possible to determine between fault and danger from a road user's perspective. Having no positive indication that it is permissible to pass the stop line (e.g. a green light) strikes me as a very poor design.

Given they are used in situations where failing to stop is a higher risk than an "ordinary" traffic light, it seems very odd to me that ordinary traffic lights have a green aspect, but wigwags don't!

 

[najaB]

Given they are used in situations where failing to stop is a higher risk than an "ordinary" traffic light, it seems very odd to me that ordinary traffic lights have a green aspect, but wigwags don't!

It's not uncommon in other countries for the green phase to be extinguished after 30 seconds or so. So the sequence is Off->Amber->Red->(Red+Amber)->Green->Off. This saves on energy usage in situations where the lights are green most of the time.

 

[jopsuk]

No maybe about it! (A15 at RAF Waddington, Lincolnshire)

Cambridge Airport has them at both ends

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Unfamiliarity probably is a factor to some extent, there are plenty of parts of the country with barely any level crossings and if you never go further than your immediate surroundings then you may well forget what you learned at 17 for the Theory Test. That is no excuse in the eyes of the law, but does indicate a practical problem when it comes to safety. Prevention is better than cure after all.
When the stakes (for misuse) are potentially so high, there could be a case for modifying the theory test so that questions on level crossings (or other situations with wig-wags) are guaranteed to come up. That could help concentrate minds. Alternatively making sure every test route has a crossing, but that would be impractical in those towns a long way from any active crossings- for example Huddersfield's nearest level crossings are at Streethouse (Wakefield) and Dodworth (Barnsley).

 

[The exile]

How many incidents actually fit the confusion excuse anyway? Its hard to say you were confused if you have swerved round the barriers! At the very least you should see flashing red lights as some kind of warning and therefore already be slowing down when the quickly following movement of the barriers gives you a pretty big clue that they might just want you to stop!

Absolutely!

 

[BayPaul]

My biggest complaint about Wigwags is that it doesn't seem to be possible to determine between fault and danger from a road user's perspective. Having no positive indication that it is permissible to pass the stop line (e.g. a green light) strikes me as a very poor design.

Given they are used in situations where failing to stop is a higher risk than an "ordinary" traffic light, it seems very odd to me that ordinary traffic lights have a green aspect, but wigwags don't!

Definitely. This is probably the best argument against wig-wags put on this thread so far. The railway, whilst normally so insistent on fail safe systems has let itself down here. (Incidentally, Automatic Half Barrier Crossings also are not fail safe to the best of my knowledge - if the barrier sticks in the open position, then nothing will stop the train from hitting traffic.) The reason for no green light is presumably that this would mean that the railway is telling car drivers to go, and there might be a highway reason why it isn't safe to do so, though this doesn't seem like something that couldn't be worked out with sensible planning between the highway and railway.

Personally, my view on wig-wags is that if you were starting from scratch, you wouldn't design it like that, but as they are in place everywhere, there is no fundamental reason to change them.

I would like to see a lot more focus on reducing the time the barriers are down for. I was idly watching the crossing at Paignton station, and it shocked me how long before an arrival from Torquay the barriers went down. As the train is travelling very slowly as it crosses the crossing, you would have thought that the barrier could be held to almost the last moment, with the signal on red, without any risk of delaying the train. Even worse, on departure, the barriers went down long before the train was ready to depart. Surely it would make sense for the sequence to be started in time with closing the doors, so the barriers are down and the signal goes green at about the same time as all doors are closed.

It may seem trivial, and perhaps even all be done in the interest of safety, but this crossing has regular movements over it (at least 4 locals per hour, plus some long distance, plus some shunting between platforms), which leads to a lot of down time on a crossing that cuts the town in half. In my mind, replanning the way this crossing works to an absolute minimum down time would be so much safer, as people wouldn't be so keen to do something silly if they know they only have a 30 second wait for the barriers to come up

 

[Meerkat]

The reason for no green light is presumably that this would mean that the railway is telling car drivers to go, and there might be a highway reason why it isn't safe to do so,

Doesn’t a green light only entitle you to pass “if it is safe to do so”?

 

[Tempest Malice]

(Incidentally, Automatic Half Barrier Crossings also are not fail safe to the best of my knowledge - if the barrier sticks in the open position, then nothing will stop the train from hitting traffic.

I understood that the barriers are held up by hydraulic pressure which is released on a power, or other crossing failure, which admittedly might not remove all failure modes, but should protect most of them.
AHB crossings also send a continuous working indication to the controlling signal box which when lost raises an alarm to the signaller who can then start cautioning trains (admittedly if the crossing fails in a way which jams barrier dropping (and without lights flashing) with the train already within the protecting signals, then that's that case might not be fail safe, but that's sufficient simultaneous failures that you can typically consider the crossing on a whole fail safe)

Surely it would make sense for the sequence to be started in time with closing the doors, so the barriers are down and the signal goes green at about the same time as all doors are closed.

Current safety rules prefer (if not downright require in most cases) train dispatch (including door closure/locking) to only be started once the starting signal is clear, which in Paignton would require the crossing clear first, though I can agree that it the crossing closure should be held until the minimum time before departure though rather than long before perhaps with a way with traincrew to indicate their readiness to the signaller if that's not already there, (though given the need to ensure the crossing is closed soon enough to not delay the trains on time departure, when getting the road traffic clear may take a variable length of time might end up with it being closed earlier than looks reasonable)

 

[najaB]

...though I can agree that it the crossing closure should be held until the minimum time before departure though rather than long before perhaps with a way with traincrew to indicate their readiness to the signaller if that's not already there...

That would be a TRTS (train ready to start) button, though I don't know if they are provided at Paignton.

 

[MarkyT]

Definitely. This is probably the best argument against wig-wags put on this thread so far. The railway, whilst normally so insistent on fail safe systems has let itself down here. (Incidentally, Automatic Half Barrier Crossings also are not fail safe to the best of my knowledge - if the barrier sticks in the open position, then nothing will stop the train from hitting traffic.) The reason for no green light is presumably that this would mean that the railway is telling car drivers to go, and there might be a highway reason why it isn't safe to do so, though this doesn't seem like something that couldn't be worked out with sensible planning between the highway and railway.

I do not like AHBCs for this reason, but there is an alarm that goes off in the signalbox after a time if the crossing fails in any significant way. The barriers are also designed to fail-safe (i.e. fall to closed position) under all foreseeable conditions too, although that brings with it a heightened risk of drivers zig-zagging round.

Personally, my view on wig-wags is that if you were starting from scratch, you wouldn't design it like that, but as they are in place everywhere, there is no fundamental reason to change them.

Most of the world uses the same sort of warning arrangement, so it would be difficult to change unilaterally, even if technically UK doesn't have to follow mainland European norms anymore. Pink glowing unicorns might do the job perhaps.

I would like to see a lot more focus on reducing the time the barriers are down for. I was idly watching the crossing at Paignton station, and it shocked me how long before an arrival from Torquay the barriers went down. As the train is travelling very slowly as it crosses the crossing, you would have thought that the barrier could be held to almost the last moment, with the signal on red, without any risk of delaying the train. Even worse, on departure, the barriers went down long before the train was ready to depart. Surely it would make sense for the sequence to be started in time with closing the doors, so the barriers are down and the signal goes green at about the same time as all doors are closed.

It may seem trivial, and perhaps even all be done in the interest of safety, but this crossing has regular movements over it (at least 4 locals per hour, plus some long distance, plus some shunting between platforms), which leads to a lot of down time on a crossing that cuts the town in half. In my mind, replanning the way this crossing works to an absolute minimum down time would be so much safer, as people wouldn't be so keen to do something silly if they know they only have a 30 second wait for the barriers to come up

I agree. There's a full 183m overlap from the protecting signal (TPWS fitted) to the crossing so I very much doubt the crossing needs to be closed in the interlocking for an approach from Torquay. There's clearly a box instruction to get the barriers down very early here for down trains, but I think it's over the top for trains that are slowing drastically to stop at the station anyway. A think Paignton would be a good candidate for conversion to a AFBCL (automatic full barrier crossing locally monitored), which is an enhanced version of the ABCL concept, with much shorter road warning time than current MCB, but equipped with full barriers and obstacle detection technology. The type is intended for locally monitored crossings with a high level of, or risk of, misuse by pedestrians.

Current safety rules prefer (if not downright require in most cases) train dispatch (including door closure/locking) to only be started once the starting signal is clear, which in Paignton would require the crossing clear first, though I can agree that it the crossing closure should be held until the minimum time before departure though rather than long before perhaps with a way with traincrew to indicate their readiness to the signaller if that's not already there, (though given the need to ensure the crossing is closed soon enough to not delay the trains on time departure, when getting the road traffic clear may take a variable length of time might end up with it being closed earlier than looks reasonable)

Up departures are not such a problem at Paignton and can occur quite quickly after the crossing is closed. It is Down arrivals where the crossing is closed many minutes beforehand.

 

[BayPaul]

Current safety rules prefer (if not downright require in most cases) train dispatch (including door closure/locking) to only be started once the starting signal is clear, which in Paignton would require the crossing clear first, though I can agree that it the crossing closure should be held until the minimum time before departure though rather than long before perhaps with a way with traincrew to indicate their readiness to the signaller if that's not already there, (though given the need to ensure the crossing is closed soon enough to not delay the trains on time departure, when getting the road traffic clear may take a variable length of time might end up with it being closed earlier than looks reasonable)

What would be ideal would perhaps be a signal that effectively says 'line is ready for the train in all ways except for the level crossing', which would mean that both the door closing and level crossing 'buttons' can be pushed so that everything is ready at the same time. A few seconds here and there do make a big difference - the railway is good at minimising delays impacting the trains, equal priority should be given to minimising delays (and so enhancing safety) to level crossing users.

Most of the world uses the same sort of warning arrangement, so it would be difficult to change unilaterally, even if technically UK doesn't have to follow mainland European norms anymore. Pink glowing unicorns might do the job perhaps.

I agree. As I say, if the first ever railway was being invented today, it would probably use simple traffic lights. As level crossing lights have been around for decades internationally, it makes little sense to change them.

I understood that the barriers are held up by hydraulic pressure which is released on a power, or other crossing failure, which admittedly might not remove all failure modes, but should protect most of them.
AHB crossings also send a continuous working indication to the controlling signal box which when lost raises an alarm to the signaller who can then start cautioning trains (admittedly if the crossing fails in a way which jams barrier dropping (and without lights flashing) with the train already within the protecting signals, then that's that case might not be fail safe, but that's sufficient simultaneous failures that you can typically consider the crossing on a whole fail safe)

That is somewhat reassuring, though I can't imagine a similar situation on a signal for example (e.g. a signal that only had a red light, but the signal box was alerted if it went out)

 

[najaB]

That is somewhat reassuring, though I can't imagine a similar situation on a signal for example (e.g. a signal that only had a red light, but the signal box was alerted if it went out)

Doesn't matter how many lamps a signal has (two, three or four) the lamps are proved lit and the signal box is alerted if any of them are broken. I expect it would be the same if there was only one lamp.

 

[BayPaul]

Doesn't matter how many lamps a signal has (two, three or four) the lamps are proved lit and the signal box is alerted if any of them are broken.

I know, and that is great. My point was that noone would accept a situation where a light out = go, red light = stop, no matter how many other safeguards are provided to be certain that the light hasn't gone out for another reason. Effectively an AHB crossing is similar to this situation - there is no absolute proof that the crossing is going to work before it is too late to stop the train.

 

[Cambus731]

I haven't read through the entire thread, so apologies if this has already been mentioned. But I think it will be a major challenge to reinstate the line between Colne and Skipton without using a Level Crossing to get past the A6068, which is pretty much immediately beyond the buffers at Colne.

 

[matchmaker]

The Alloa line rebuilding saw a number of level crossings rebuilt which came into use in 2008.

However, several crossings were closed completely and one in Alloa itself was replaced by a new road bridge. Apart from the UWCs, all the remaining crossings are full barrier CCTV, monitored from the SAK panel in Stirling Middle signal box. A proposal to make the Cambus crossing AHB was changed after local opposition.

 

[najaB]

Effectively an AHB crossing is similar to this situation - there is no absolute proof that the crossing is going to work before it is too late to stop the train.

There is no absolute proof for many things. However AHBC's being eliminated from the network, or converted to MCB-OD/MCB-CCTV.

 

[zwk500]

I haven't read through the entire thread, so apologies if this has already been mentioned. But I think it will be a major challenge to reinstate the line between Colne and Skipton without using a Level Crossing to get past the A6068, which is pretty much immediately beyond the buffers at Colne.

The level crossing would not be the most pressing issue with that project.

 

[Ploughman]

Apologies if this has been mentioned already.
I have not seen any mention of the WIG WAGS in place outside Fire Stations.
They apply to all road users and not seen any mention of unfamiliararity.