Ban on building level crossings

[30907]

Leaving aside misuse, a major factor will be a substantial increase in rail and road traffic at many locations. In my area Crosshills (on a major road) and Cononley have seen about a fourfold increase in rail traffic since the low point of the 70s, not to mention the increase in road traffic.

 

[Ploughman]

I believe that the new installation of LC's is possible.
One railway in the UK is currently applying to install an LC but is having to go through a public inquiry and the Council planning process.

 

[Falcon1200]

The trouble is, who decides which is safer?

I’ve seen the results of a road vehicle hitting a bridge parapet wall. The wall was made of stone, and a significant amount fell onto the track below…

In my career dealing with such incidents I can categorically say that the number of overbridge accidents affecting the railway was a fraction of the number of level crossing incidents, the latter (but not the former) included fatalities.

 

[swt_passenger]

I believe 'Norden Gates' crossing, just north of Norden on the Swanage Railway, is new, opened in 2016.

It did upgrade an existing gated crossing though, which I suppose meant it had a head start over a brand new crossing where there was nothing at all.

 

[Annetts key]

I doubt many new stone parapet walls are built these days. They'll be reinforced concrete, with a steel armco barrier on the inside if there's a high risk of impact.

Indeed. Standards for parapet strength have increased over the years, after several incidents where bits of the parapet landed on the track and one where a cement truck landed on the roof of a passing train. The new and upgraded ones on the East West Rail thread are examples.

Yes, the required standards have moved on, so for new bridges the risk of the parapet becoming damaged to the extent that parts of it or a road vehicle will fall on the line is much reduced. But there are still thousands of bridges with brick or stone parapets still in use. Okay, most of these will be on minor roads, lanes and linking private land.

In my career dealing with such incidents I can categorically say that the number of overbridge accidents affecting the railway was a fraction of the number of level crossing incidents, the latter (but not the former) included fatalities.

I’m not disputing that there are far, far more incidents with level crossings compared to bridges. I just wanted to point out that a bridge is not completely risk free.

Anything next to a road can be a target, including level crossing equipment when the crossing is open to road traffic. I’ve seen a barrier unit seriously damaged due to a car crashing into it, even though all the barriers were in the raised position and none of the road traffic lights were illuminated!

 

[norbitonflyer]

In my career dealing with such incidents I can categorically say that the number of overbridge accidents affecting the railway was a fraction of the number of level crossing incidents, the latter (but not the former) included fatalities.

Great Heck,?

Two level crossings opened in event years, both on A roads. One was on the Wallingford bypass, where it crosses the Cholsey & Wallingford heritage line. Installed when the bypass was built in, I believe, the 1990s.
The other is in the centre of Porthmadog, and was installed when the Welsh Highland railway was connected to the Ffestiniog about 10 years ago.
It so happens that I have driven over both of these, and the Oswestry example mentioned above, in the last couple of days.

 

[najaB]

Yes, the required standards have moved on, so for new bridges the risk of the parapet becoming damaged to the extent that parts of it or a road vehicle will fall on the line is much reduced. But there are still thousands of bridges with brick or stone parapets still in use. Okay, most of these will be on minor roads, lanes and linking private land.

True. But this thread is about new level crossings vs new bridges.

 

[paul1609]

I believe that the new installation of LC's is possible.
One railway in the UK is currently applying to install an LC but is having to go through a public inquiry and the Council planning process.

The planning process was completed a few years ago, the public inquiry was completed in the summer and the inspectors report and the secretary of states decision is awaited hopefully sometime this year.

 

[MarkyT]

When the Aylsham (Norfolk) bypass was built an AOCL was installed where this crossed the freight branch from Lenwade concrete works to Wroxham (this branch utilised the Themelthorpe curve which is probably the last new track laid in East Anglia) Presumably the costs of doing anything else and the infrequency of train movements (no more than two a day) was why this was permitted.

Don't forget that an AOC(L) is a (L)ocally monitored type of crossing, i.e. the train driver is responsible for ensuring the road is clear before crossing. Combined with the low speed and frequency, the risk must be low in this case, which goes a long way toward justifying a level crossing.

The relevance to this thread is that when the Bure Valley Railway was built on the trackbed between Aylsham they could have simply reactivated this crossing but it was decreed, and I'm not sure by whom, that the 15" stock would not fare well in any collision with road traffic and a new tunnel, which incidentally is now the only active one in Norfolk, was constructed. Obviously the necessary gradients were easier to achieve with narrow gauge rather than standard gauge.

Droppin a 15" gauge line a few feet to pass under the road was no doubt significantly easier than ensuring full standard gauge clearance.

Such concern would appear to be justified. The Romney Hythe and Dymchurch had two drivers killed in separate accidents hitting cars. Such a collision probably wouldn't injure the occupants of a standard gauge train (HGVs are a different matter) but narrow gauge trains are more prone to overturning, and the driver is much lower down.

In both cases, I think they were crushed between the 'jack-knifing' engine and tender following derailment, a particular hazard with the design of the miniature locos where the driver's seat is in the front of the tender immediately behind the cab. In response, the railway added new half barriers to all their locally monitored automatic crossings, which were previously of the AOC(L) type.

 

[Llanigraham]

The other is in the centre of Porthmadog, and was installed when the Welsh Highland railway was connected to the Ffestiniog about 10 years ago.
It so happens that I have driven over both of these, and the Oswestry example mentioned above, in the last couple of days.

I believe that Britannia Bridge in Porthmadog is classed as a "tramway"

 

[thelem]

Surely this is not always practical? A bridge requires the road to be raised significantly; a tunnel requires digging under the railway. Say a new line is built, how else does it cross an important road if said raising or lowering of the road is not feasible for a respective bridge or tunnel there?

If you're building an entirely new road or railway then you'll need to decide where the route should go. That means in a lot of places you'll simply need to build a bridge or embankment on what is currently a field - not the most complex or expensive engineering challenge. If your first choice of route would make an embankment difficult, then you've got the option of tweaking the route to make it easier.

Existing level crossings are often in built up areas, so you can't change the height of the road without affecting the properties on it, and changing the height of the railway would mean a very long closure.

 

[Spaceflower]

Witton - le - Wear on the Weardale Railway? This was mothballed for a long time before reopening to heritage/freight traffic, surely. It must involve a DO crossing.

What about the Wensleydale east of Leeming?

 

[Andyjs247]

The Bicester Eastern Perimeter Road A4421 had a new level crossing installed in about 1990. At that time the Oxford- Bletchley line was very quiet with maybe a maximum of 10 trains a week. However in the last month a new bridge has been opened at Charbridge Lane replacing the level crossing as part of East West Rail.

 

[Crossover]

I believe 'Norden Gates' crossing, just north of Norden on the Swanage Railway, is new, opened in 2016.

It looks like the crossing (track itself) was in existence as far back as 2011.

EDIT: Didn't realise there was a page 2!

 

[Falcon1200]

I’m not disputing that there are far, far more incidents with level crossings compared to bridges. I just wanted to point out that a bridge is not completely risk free.

I agree, and recall one incident I was involved in, IIRC between Larbert and Stirling, where a motorist failed to take the bend at an overbridge and knocked the parapet onto the line. Fortunately no train was involved, although of course the line was closed for a while.

Great Heck,?

A dreadful accident indeed, but the vehicle did not actually come off the road at the overbridge, or knock any part of it onto the track.

 

[Brissle Girl]

The Portishead example is interesting. When the road was built (around 20 years ago?) severing the route just short of the original station site there was concern that it would prevent the line being reopened to its original terminus. But assurances were given that in the event of the line being reopened it would not be a problem.

But of course that turned out not to be the case, and a suboptimal site has been chosen instead. Given the crossing is close enough to the original site that imposing a low speed limit would result in a relatively minor time penalty, outweighed by the additional convenience of having a more central site, it appears that rules have outweighed a sensible and pragmatic solution.

 

[najaB]

Given the crossing is close enough to the original site that imposing a low speed limit would result in a relatively minor time penalty, outweighed by the additional convenience of having a more central site, it appears that rules have outweighed a sensible and pragmatic solution

I'm not 100% on the details but according to Wikipedia it's a matter of 600m between the old station site and new one. Hardly sounds like the end of the world and not having a level crossing (and another bridge I'm guessing) probably saved a large part of a million pounds. Seems that pragmatism did win out over sentimentality.

 

[Bill57p9]

I believe that Britannia Bridge in Porthmadog is classed as a "tramway"

Which raises another question in my head: why is the presumption that level crossings present unacceptable levels of risk whilst "tramways" are acceptable - even proliferating?

I really do struggle a bit with the lack of consistent standards. If roads were built to risk ALARP then surely traffic lights would be mostly accompanied by barriers, and bridges or underpasses in lieu of pedestrian crossings.

 

[najaB]

If roads were built to risk ALARP then surely traffic lights would be mostly accompanied by barriers, and bridges or underpasses in lieu of pedestrian crossings.

True, if not for the "R".

 

[zwk500]

Which raises another question in my head: why is the presumption that level crossings present unacceptable levels of risk whilst "tramways" are acceptable - even proliferating?

Fundamentally, trams are driven on line-of-sight. A train is not. The tram driver has a good chance of stopping if something tries to run across the front. There's also a big difference between a low-floor tram hitting a car at moderate speed and a high-floor train hitting the car at high speed.

 

[edwin_m]

Which raises another question in my head: why is the presumption that level crossings present unacceptable levels of risk whilst "tramways" are acceptable - even proliferating?

I really do struggle a bit with the lack of consistent standards. If roads were built to risk ALARP then surely traffic lights would be mostly accompanied by barriers, and bridges or underpasses in lieu of pedestrian crossings.

On a tramway, vehicles are driven on line of sight, so as to be able to stop short of any obstruction that becomes visible, just as road vehicles are (or should be). This should be possible using the normal brakes, not the magnetic track brakes. A collision is still possible if something gets onto the track close in front of a moving tram, but tram drivers are trained to anticipate such situations and they have the track brake as a backup should one arise.

Therefore, other things being equal, the likelihood of a collision is much less on a tramway crossing than on a railway level crossing. The solution to this is to manage the risk so other things aren't equal, such as by providing flashing lights and barriers at a railway level crossing, connected to high-integrity detection and control logic. Although they look different, tram signals are very similar in function and integrity to traffic lights.

 

[Llanigraham]

Yet the Britannia Bridge crossing has the "normal" full level crossing lights, barriers, etc, and I do know that drivers have been prosecuted for ignioring them.

 

[Annetts key]

The Portishead example is interesting. When the road was built (around 20 years ago?) severing the route just short of the original station site there was concern that it would prevent the line being reopened to its original terminus. But assurances were given that in the event of the line being reopened it would not be a problem.

But of course that turned out not to be the case, and a suboptimal site has been chosen instead. Given the crossing is close enough to the original site that imposing a low speed limit would result in a relatively minor time penalty, outweighed by the additional convenience of having a more central site, it appears that rules have outweighed a sensible and pragmatic solution.

I'm not 100% on the details but according to Wikipedia it's a matter of 600m between the old station site and new one. Hardly sounds like the end of the world and not having a level crossing (and another bridge I'm guessing) probably saved a large part of a million pounds. Seems that pragmatism did win out over sentimentality.

The 1954 station was in the area now occupied by the retail park between Harbour Road and Old Mill Road (shown as an aerial view via this link).
The proposed site of the new station is between Phoenix Way and Peartree Field (aerial view via this link) with the roundabout on Harbour Road/Phoenix Way/Quays Avenue being altered/moved further into the town slightly and alterations to Quays Avenue.

With regards to the history, if at the time that the road (Quays Avenue) had been built they had included a level crossing, even a simple AOCL (which may have been acceptable given the very slow speed of the infrequent ‘freight’ traffic on the railway and the speed of the new road being 30MPH), then it’s very possible that the railway would not now have to be terminated at this point.

 

[MarkyT]

Fundamentally, trams are driven on line-of-sight. A train is not. The tram driver has a good chance of stopping if something tries to run across the front. There's also a big difference between a low-floor tram hitting a car at moderate speed and a high-floor train hitting the car at high speed.

Good point generally and I don't think anyone would sensibly argue in favour of any kind of level crossing on busy and high-speed lines, which on the modern railway would cover the majority of locations. However on branch lines and at other locations where local approach speed and traffic volume (both road and rail) are limited, locally monitored crossing types can also often be employed fairly safely on heavy rail systems. In the UK, the AOC(L) type was developed initially for this application as an ungated light-protected configuration, all bar one of which were later converted to a half barrier variant, maintaining the local monitoring feature, consisting of a drivers' flashing white light indicator to prove the equipment working correctly and crossing surface floodlighting to assist visibility in hours of darkness. Rail approach speed is adjusted by special restriction boards to a figure where the train is able to stop before the road if seen to be blocked from the sighting point. For best case approach visibility these crossings can be used at speeds up to 55mph, so can be particularly useful in the vicinity of stations where all train stop. The latest development in this range is a full barrier version, "Automatic Full Barrier Crossing, Locally Monitored" (AFBCL), supplemented by obstacle detection proved in the white light indication, with the advantage of not having the extended road closed time of the alternative MCB-OD type.

Level Crossing Protection

 

[snowball]

Yet the Britannia Bridge crossing has the "normal" full level crossing lights, barriers, etc, and I do know that drivers have been prosecuted for ignioring them.

There are wig-wag lights but no barriers.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

 

[Llanigraham]

There are wig-wag lights but no barriers.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

I could have sworn there weree barriers there! Oops. Apologies.
So is it an ungated level crossing or a tramway crossing?

 

[edwin_m]

Good point generally and I don't think anyone would sensibly argue in favour of any kind of level crossing on busy and high-speed lines, which on the modern railway would cover the majority of locations. However on branch lines and at other locations where local approach speed and traffic volume (both road and rail) are limited, locally monitored crossing types can also often be employed fairly safely on heavy rail systems. In the UK, the AOC(L) type was developed initially for this application as an ungated light-protected configuration, all bar one of which were later converted to a half barrier variant, maintaining the local monitoring feature, consisting of a drivers' flashing white light indicator to prove the equipment working correctly and crossing surface floodlighting to assist visibility in hours of darkness. Rail approach speed is adjusted by special restriction boards to a figure where the train is able to stop before the road if seen to be blocked from the sighting point. For best case approach visibility these crossings can be used at speeds up to 55mph, so can be particularly useful in the vicinity of stations where all train stop. The latest development in this range is a full barrier version, "Automatic Full Barrier Crossing, Locally Monitored" (AFBCL), supplemented by obstacle detection proved in the white light indication, with the advantage of not having the extended road closed time of the alternative MCB-OD type.

Level Crossing Protection

I've often wondered if trains with magnetic track brakes could be used on routes with many of this type of crossing. This might allow a faster approach speed, because the train could still stop from the sighting distance if the crossing was blocked or not working.

 

[paul1609]

With regards to the history, if at the time that the road (Quays Avenue) had been built they had included a level crossing, even a simple AOCL (which may have been acceptable given the very slow speed of the infrequent ‘freight’ traffic on the railway and the speed of the new road being 30MPH), then it’s very possible that the railway would not now have to be terminated at this point.

When was the last train over the section that quays avenue crosses? When I walked along the section of the same line near the M5 a mile or so closer to Bristol 2 years ago a lot of the rails were missing and much of what did remain was flooded to rail height.
I'd suggest that the TWA order now normal practise would have ruled out a level crossing adjacent to a roundabout on a new passenger line even if a disused freight crossing had existed.

 

[MarkyT]

I've often wondered if trains with magnetic track brakes could be used on routes with many of this type of crossing. This might allow a faster approach speed, because the train could still stop from the sighting distance if the crossing was blocked or not working.

Interesting idea. Pushing the braking performance of heavy rail vehicles closer to that of light rail, where level crossings are, by definition, far less controversial.

 

[NoRoute]

I'm curious whether the safety assessments for new level crossings consider just the crossing in isolation, or the wider situation where the need for a bridge or multiple bridges may make a rail scheme financially unviable such that it doesn't get built at all and as a result all of those journeys which would have been by rail now take place by using the roads.

Creating a new level crossing creates a safety risk, but if it means it is then viable to reopen a rail route then there's a safety benefit from reduced road journeys, which may offset or exceed the risk from a new level crossing.

Anyone know?