Ely North Junction upgrade alternatives

[MikeWM]

Moderator note: Split from

Ely North Junction upgrade proposals

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Ely/4m-boost-to-rail-network-thanks-to-EU-10072012.htm "Almost £4 million of EU funding will be put towards upgrading the Ely North Junction. The European Parliament agreed to invest £3.8 million in the major scheme today (Tuesday). It comes just a week after the...

www.railforums.co.uk

"level crossing work" might mean a number of bridges over railways and rivers, rather than replacing a few barriers

Which indeed it does, and as such the chances of it ever getting the go-ahead seems ever slimmer as the cost gets ever higher as more and more gets lumped into the project.

Alternatively, as I've argued earlier in this thread and elsewhere, we could just get on with the upgrade of the track and leave the level crossings as they are, rather than trying to do crazy and expensive things like build massive road bridges in the middle of an SSSI. And accept that it will marginally increase risk at a number of level crossings that have perfectly good sightlines and not a lot of traffic, but that it is well worth doing the upgrade anyway for a more reasonable price.

 

[ac6000cw]

As well as the ones in the north junction area, the increased rail traffic (the point of all this) will affect other level crossings on the routes which radiate out from Ely, which may need upgrading or replacing as part of the project.

Also there are two bridges over the river just north of Ely station which need replacing or major strengthening to remove/raise the current speed restrictions for freight trains.

we could just get on with the upgrade of the track and leave the level crossings as they are

I understand what you are suggesting and why, but without doing something about the level crossings (as I understand it) you can't increase the train count significantly under the current rules (and I don't see anyone watering them down in today's safety climate). So what's the point of spending scarce investment money on redesigning/rebuilding the junction itself?

 

[MikeWM]

I understand what you are suggesting and why, but without doing something about the level crossings (as I understand it) you can't increase the train count significantly under the current rules (and I don't see anyone watering them down in today's safety climate).

But - we've discussed this before on this thread and others - that's exactly the problem. The benefits of this scheme so obviously outweigh the marginally increased risk of leaving the crossings as they are. This safety-obsessed climate is stopping us from doing things we urgently need to do, by making the cost (both financial and, in this case, environmental) so great we never do them.

 

[zwk500]

But - we've discussed this before on this thread and others - that's exactly the problem. The benefits of this scheme so obviously outweigh the marginally increased risk of leaving the crossings as they are. This safety-obsessed climate is stopping us from doing things we urgently need to do, by making the cost (both financial and, in this case, environmental) so great we never do them.

The rules (and the law, AIUI), say that if you change the quantum of trains through a level crossing, you change the risk. And therefore you need to address that risk.

 

[MikeWM]

The rules (and the law, AIUI), say that if you change the quantum of trains through a level crossing, you change the risk. And therefore you need to address that risk.

..or you change the rules, and the law if necessary, because it is clearly holding us back from doing things that are desperately needed.

 

[zwk500]

..or you change the rules, and the law if necessary, because it is clearly holding us back from doing things that are desperately needed.

but that goes beyond 'just getting on with it', which is what your original suggestion was.

 

[MikeWM]

but that goes beyond 'just getting on with it', which is what your original suggestion was.

I mean everyone, not just NR. Clearly NR can't just go off and break the law. If we need legal changes first, let's get on with those!

 

[zwk500]

I mean everyone, not just NR. Clearly NR can't just go off and break the law. If we need legal changes first, let's get on with those!

Fair enough. My next question would be speculative so I'll leave it here for the Mod's sake.

 

[Roast Veg]

I mean everyone, not just NR. Clearly NR can't just go off and break the law. If we need legal changes first, let's get on with those!

A legal challenge to measurably decrease safety might cost more than the project itself.

 

[MikeWM]

A legal challenge to measurably decrease safety might cost more than the project itself.

Probably.

I'd rather the Government decided to rebalance somewhat. I'm not calling for a return to Victorian attitudes to health and safety, but I think there is a sensible middle ground to be found.

 

[Bald Rick]

Alternatively, as I've argued earlier in this thread and elsewhere, we could just get on with the upgrade of the track and leave the level crossings as they are

And accept that it will marginally increase risk at a number of level crossings that have perfectly good sightlines and not a lot of traffic

It sounds good, but it’s not that simple.

Somebody has to sign the dotted line that says the increased risk is managed as far as is reasonably practicable. But that is demonstrably not the case, as there are reasonably practical alternatives.

Therefore if someone does sign the dotted line, in the knowledge that something safer could have been done (reasonably), then when, inevitably, an incident happens at the crossing, that someone is in front of the person with the funny wig and looking at a stretch for manslaughter.

‘Changing the law’ means changing the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, which has widespread implications.

 

[ABB125]

Changing the law’ means changing the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, which has widespread implications.

Out of interest, why is this (people using level crossings) covered by the HSaW Act, when pretty much everyone doing so is a member of public not doing any work? Is it to do with the increased risk to the train driver (with the public being essentially irrelevant)?

 

[trebor79]

Probably.

I'd rather the Government decided to rebalance somewhat. I'm not calling for a return to Victorian attitudes to health and safety, but I think there is a sensible middle ground to be found.

I agree. Where it's going to the point that the answer is either "too expensive" or "slightly more dangerous" then either someone needs to think creatively about other mitigations, or the law is an ass.

It sounds good, but it’s not that simple.

Somebody has to sign the dotted line that says the increased risk is managed as far as is reasonably practicable. But that is demonstrably not the case, as there are reasonably practical alternatives.

Therefore if someone does sign the dotted line, in the knowledge that something safer could have been done (reasonably), then when, inevitably, an incident happens at the crossing, that someone is in front of the person with the funny wig and looking at a stretch for manslaughter.

‘Changing the law’ means changing the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, which has widespread implications.

Clearly though the defined alternative not "reasonably practicable", because it's ridiculously expensive.
I've been in situations where I've had to sign off stuff that is less than perfect (in a different industry) and was perfectly happy doing so. There is no point in making the perfect the enemy of the acceptable.

 

[Steve Harris]

Out of interest, why is this (people using level crossings) covered by the HSaW Act, when pretty much everyone doing so is a member of public not doing any work? Is it to do with the increased risk to the train driver (with the public being essentially irrelevant)?

Under the HASW Act1974 anyone visiting a company becomes the responsibility of that company even if they are on the premises with or without permission. Be that a member of the public, cat burglar*, visitors etc

When you're using a crossing you are on Network Rails land, so they are responsible for your welfare (under HASW 1974).

*e.g. (a case I rememberin the press years ago) a burglar has fallen through a roof and the company has still been taken to court under H&S law because the burglar got injured/died. Reasonably practicable in this case would of been stopping the burglar getting on the roof and signage pointing out that the roof was not to be stood/walked on, risk of death/injury etc.

I agree. Where it's going to the point that the answer is either "too expensive" or "slightly more dangerous" then either someone needs to think creatively about other mitigations, or the law is an ass.

Clearly though the defined alternative not "reasonably practicable", because it's ridiculously expensive.
I've been in situations where I've had to sign off stuff that is less than perfect (in a different industry) and was perfectly happy doing so. There is no point in making the perfect the enemy of the acceptable.

Indeed. Until "reasonably practicable" is defined in law no one is going to sign off and take the risk of testing it in court and suffering the consequences if it goes wrong.

When I was on H&S courses it was always drummed into me, the bigger the company (with the bigger finance's) the cost of "reasonably practicable" was higher compared to a company with 2 employees and 1000 times less the capital of the larger company.

 

[trebor79]

Indeed. Until "reasonably practicable" is defined in law no one is going to sign off and take the risk of testing it in court and suffering the consequences if it goes wrong.

When I was on H&S courses it was always drummed into me, the bigger the company (with the bigger finance's) the cost of "reasonably practicable" was higher compared to a company with 2 employees and 1000 times less the capital of the larger company.

My view was ways that if it ended up in court (which was highly unlikely because what I was doing wasn't dangerous anyway), that a jury of my peers would have a similar view on what "reasonably practicable" means.

Did the company in your burglar case actually get convicted?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It sounds good, but it’s not that simple.

Somebody has to sign the dotted line that says the increased risk is managed as far as is reasonably practicable. But that is demonstrably not the case, as there are reasonably practical alternatives.

I guess that hinges on the definition of 'practicable'. If 'practicable' means that you have to pay an extra £50 million in order to avoid a potential risk to someone who misuses a level crossing, and as a result, a scheme that would help the local economy (and possibly - by causing a small amount of travel modal shift - save a few car accidents to boot) becomes unaffordable, then that would suggest to me that our standards have got warped, and there does need to be a change of the law/regulations/culture to balance risk vs costs better. I'm not sure if that's approximately the situation at Ely, but it sounds like something like that may be a contributing factor?

 

[Taunton]

If the crossings are so dangerous, why are they AHBs instead of fully gated?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I guess that hinges on the definition of 'practicable'. If 'practicable' means that you have to pay an extra £50 million in order to avoid a potential risk to someone who misuses a level crossing, and as a result, a scheme that would help the local economy (and possibly - by causing a small amount of travel modal shift - save a few car accidents to boot) becomes unaffordable, then that would suggest to me that our standards have got warped, and there does need to be a change of the law/regulations/culture to balance risk vs costs better. I'm not sure if that's approximately the situation at Ely, but it sounds like something like that may be a contributing factor?

Precisely they aren't looking at it holistically and as a result the project gets stalled. I find it hard to believe there aren't people at the top of our industry who can't see the railways are in danger of becoming marginalised if we don't address some of these issues.

 

[dk1]

If the crossings are so dangerous, why are they AHBs instead of fully gated?

They were much cheaper when originally introduced. Different railway back then.

 

[Bald Rick]

Clearly though the defined alternative not "reasonably practicable", because it's ridiculously expensive.

There is clear guidance from the ORR of what ‘reasonably practical’ is. That’s why only some of the level crossings need attention, not all of them.

Indeed. Until "reasonably practicable" is defined in law no one is going to sign off and take the risk of testing it in court and suffering the consequences if it goes wrong.

Well quite.

If the crossings are so dangerous, why are they AHBs instead of fully gated?

Well that’s the point. Some of them are AHBs now, and the increase in risk through extra traffic drives a need to do ‘something’, and therefore some of them become fully gated. But the level of traffic (rail and road) and Queen Adelaide is such that it would make the road unusable. Hence a need for something more radical.

 

[Taunton]

Well that’s the point. Some of them are AHBs now, and the increase in risk through extra traffic drives a need to do ‘something’, and therefore some of them become fully gated. But the level of traffic (rail and road) and Queen Adelaide is such that it would make the road unusable. Hence a need for something more radical.

Whoa! This is Health & Safety we are talking about here. They don't care about whether something is hugely expensive or makes the road unusable. It's just comply with their standards and that's it. So full gate them. Job done!

Looks like the cheapest alternative to all this for the railway would be to buy all the houses in Queen Adelaide between the crossings and demolish them. That would surely cost less than engineered access. Can't have any complaints, it's Health & Safety. In passing, how many accidents on the crossings have there actually been in say the last 10 years? And how many on the rest of the B1382?

 

[The exile]

I agree. Where it's going to the point that the answer is either "too expensive" or "slightly more dangerous" then either someone needs to think creatively about other mitigations, or the law is an ass.

Especially if those criteria are in isolation, rather than in the context of what money needs to spent / lives might be lost elsewhere if we do nothing.

 

[MarkyT]

If one of the crossings, say the one on the March line, was converted to full barriers with the longer road closure time involved, that forces conversion of all three, as the full barriers being closed for longer risks traffic queues blocking back over the other half barrier crossings nearby, with no supervision or interlocking and a short warning time.

AHBCs have an inherent risk of abuse that cannot be mitigated effectively.

Increases in traffic on road or rail inevitably increases the opportunity for this abuse and hence raises the likelihood of incidents occurring proportionately; that is why many are being converted to automated MCB full barriers with obstacle detection (OD) technology.

The close proximity of the three Queen Adelaide crossings is the underlying problem at Ely.

Even though full barriers at all three could tackle the safety problem, the traffic blockages could not only bring the local road network to a stand, but that traffic could block back over an adjacent crossing and cause knock-on delays to rail traffic as well.

 

[Verulamius]

Why not close the level crossing on Ely Road on the March line so that the Ely Road is no longer a through road at that point?

 

[dosxuk]

Why not close the level crossing on Ely Road on the March line so that the Ely Road is no longer a through road at that point?

Closing that one level crossing would require a five mile detour for users.

 

[Verulamius]

Closing that one level crossing would require a five mile detour for users.

Yes, but how many users? It would reduce risk and traffic on the other level crossings?

 

[bspahh]

Yes, but how many users? It would reduce risk and traffic on the other level crossings?

The Queen Adelaide Traffic Report from 2018 says that in a during a typical weekday (12 hours 7am to 7pm), 5500 vehicles used one of the level crossings (5000 didn't).

 

[Starmill]

Out of interest, why is this (people using level crossings) covered by the HSaW Act, when pretty much everyone doing so is a member of public not doing any work? Is it to do with the increased risk to the train driver (with the public being essentially irrelevant)?

Network Rail staff, anyone working as permanent way staff, and the crew of trains are all at work.

The general public who are onboard a train are also in the care of the train operator they're travelling with. Should those workers or customers come to harm the train operator and Network Rail are very likely to be liable.

Road users who are crossing the railway at a designated point also have a different but similar right not to come to harm as a result of doing so in the proper manner.

The risks when crossing a railway line are inherently quite different to crossing a road or tramway, because usually in the latter cases, safety will be managed mainly by drivers being able to stop short of obstructions in time.

If one of the crossings, say the one on the March line, was converted to full barriers with the longer road closure time involved, that forces conversion of all three, as the full barriers being closed for longer risks traffic queues blocking back over the other half barrier crossings nearby, with no supervision or interlocking and a short warning time. AHBCs have an inherent risk of abuse that cannot be mitigated effectively. Increases in traffic on road or rail inevitably increases the opportunity for this abuse and hence raises the likelyhood of incidents occurring proportionately; that is why many are being converted to automated MCB full barriers with obstacle detection (OD) technology. The close proximity of the three Queen Adelaide crossings is the underlying problem at Ely. Even though full barriers at all three could tackle the safety problem, the traffic blockages could not only bring the local road network to a stand, but that traffic could block back over an adjacent crossing and cause knock-on delays to rail traffic as well.

The obvious way to solve the problem to me is to reduce the motor traffic over the crossings, but in order to do that we'd need a fundamentally different attitude to subsidised bus travel in this country. So it's very unlikely to happen. The crossings could be restricted to permitted locals, service and business vehicles and non-motor traffic only. That would bring it low enough to make an increase in rail services safe enough. Sadly that's simply not feasible in England.

 

[Magdalia]

There is a different solution for Queen Adelaide, which does not involve closing the Ely-Prickwillow Road, demolition of any buildings in Queen Adelaide, or any new road infrastructure.

What is needed is to close the Kings Lynn line level crossing to rail traffic, so that the two remaining level crossings are 500 metres apart and both can have full barriers.

But it requires about a mile of new railway, with the Kings Lynn line diverging from the Peterborough line at a new junction north of the Ely-Prickwillow Road, then going across Waterden Fen to rejoin the existing alignment about a mile towards Littleport.

Given that this includes a new junction for the Kings Lynn and Peterborough lines it also opens up the option of grade separation, which is impossible at Ely North Junction.

What I have no idea on is a comparison of costs between a mile of new railway across a fen and the road infrastructure that's in the existing proposal.

 

[snowball]

There is a different solution for Queen Adelaide, which does not involve closing the Ely-Prickwillow Road, demolition of any buildings in Queen Adelaide, or any new road infrastructure.

What is needed is to close the Kings Lynn line level crossing to rail traffic, so that the two remaining level crossings are 500 metres apart and both can have full barriers.

But it requires about a mile of new railway, with the Kings Lynn line diverging from the Peterborough line at a new junction north of the Ely-Prickwillow Road, then going across Waterden Fen to rejoin the existing alignment about a mile towards Littleport.

Given that this includes a new junction for the Kings Lynn and Peterborough lines it also opens up the option of grade separation, which is impossible at Ely North Junction.

What I have no idea on is a comparison of costs between a mile of new railway across a fen and the road infrastructure that's in the existing proposal.

That would remove one of the three level crossings on the B1382 but merely move all its rail traffic to one of the other two!