Foot crossing near Cononley closed as horns on Class 80x trains “too quiet”

[dgl]

That exists in the UK as well, produced by Covtec - https://www.covtec.co.uk/services.html#sawd
Train detection is by radar rather than track circuit.

 

[Meerkat]

If they are putting in the detection for a horn why don’t they just use red/green lights and not annoy the neighbours?

 

[Annetts key]

If they are putting in the detection for a horn why don’t they just use red/green lights and not annoy the neighbours?

Cost…

 

[Meerkat]

Cost…

R/G is more expensive than a horn? I assumed that the installation and train detection cost would dwarf the lights v horn bit??

 

[30907]

If they are putting in the detection for a horn why don’t they just use red/green lights and not annoy the neighbours?

Are they? Have I missed that?

 

[Meerkat]

Are they? Have I missed that?

Not as the location originally mentioned, but someone else said train activated crossing horns existed

 

[Annetts key]

R/G is more expensive than a horn? I assumed that the installation and train detection cost would dwarf the lights v horn bit??

A red/green crossing system requires multiple rail wheel sensors (and one of these per direction needs to be a considerable distance from the crossing in order for the crossing to give sufficient warning), a separate control cubicle plus the light units themselves. The light units include warning horns/sirens as well. Plus the cabling, a mobile data connection to report faults/problems. And this is the cost reduced version (more expensive systems that are extensions of the signalling system exist). The standard versions run off a mains supply.

As I understand it, the horn system uses radar sensors, so everything is mounted on one post (per direction). At least for ‘straight’ lines. But I’ve only seen a trial version, not an actual working installation.

 

[Ploughman]

Is the Train Operated Warning System (TOWS) still installed on that line?
Can that be adapted in some means to provide a permanent warning?
I realise that it is in place to provide warning to track staff.
I have used it frequently in the past.

 

[TSG]

And this is the cost reduced version (more expensive systems that are extensions of the signalling system exist). The standard versions run off a mains supply.

The station could well be within the strike in for an overlay, so you'd probably have to use the more expensive integrated type because of the variability of waiting times

Is TOWS still installed on that line?
Can that be adapted in some means to provide a permanent warning?
I realise that it is in place to provide warning to track staff.

Although integrated with the signalling system, TOWS is a fairly simple system optimised for staff warning. Warning times can be long and variable. Compared with crossing users, TOWS users typically have better understanding of instructions for use, better compliance to those instructions, and more willingness to wait (being paid to lean on a shovel is better than having to shift ballast ). The safe tone would also really piss residents off!

 

[Meerkat]

A red/green crossing system requires multiple rail wheel sensors (and one of these per direction needs to be a considerable distance from the crossing in order for the crossing to give sufficient warning), a separate control cubicle plus the light units themselves. The light units include warning horns/sirens as well. Plus the cabling, a mobile data connection to report faults/problems. And this is the cost reduced version (more expensive systems that are extensions of the signalling system exist). The standard versions run off a mains supply.

As I understand it, the horn system uses radar sensors, so everything is mounted on one post (per direction). At least for ‘straight’ lines. But I’ve only seen a trial version, not an actual working installation.

Thanks. How long will the horn system stay simple and out the grasp of the safety escalation police?

 

[Annetts key]

Thanks. How long will the horn system stay simple and out the grasp of the safety escalation police?

I don’t know the answer to that. However, the ORR have been pushing Network Rail to come up with safe, but cost effective improvements to level crossings such as this, but where there is insufficient justification for a traditional solution (due to the cost). Where the traditional solution is to use the signalling system (with the very high safety standard standards that that requires, hence the high cost) to control a red/green light crossing system.

 

[D6130]

I don’t know the answer to that. However, the ORR have been pushing Network Rail to come up with safe, but cost effective improvements to level crossings such as this, but where there is insufficient justification for a traditional solution (due to the cost). Where the traditional solution is to use the signalling system (with the very high safety standard standards that that requires, hence the high cost) to control a red/green light crossing system.

IMHO, the most cost-effective solution in the case of Flosh Crossing at Cononley would be to cut down the large bushes (now small trees) which Network Rail and their predecessors have allowed to grow unchecked either side of the crossing over the last 20-25 years. That would give pedestrians almost a mile's clear view of the line towards Keighley. Admittedly the view in the Skipton direction is only about a quarter of that distance, but maybe some kind of warning system could be tied-in with the level crossing barriers at Cononley Station.

 

[Meerkat]

I don’t know the answer to that. However, the ORR have been pushing Network Rail to come up with safe, but cost effective improvements to level crossings such as this, but where there is insufficient justification for a traditional solution (due to the cost). Where the traditional solution is to use the signalling system (with the very high safety standard standards that that requires, hence the high cost) to control a red/green light crossing system.

I thought the red/green lights for foot crossings were stand alone and not connected to the signalling?

 

[clagmonster]

How easy would it be to diagram a 91 on the evening Skipton, temporarily ban 80x from the line and hence reopen the crossing? I appreciate that there would be work involved for the planners in this.

Hopefully by the time the 91s are eventually withdrawn, the horn reliability issue will be sorted.

 

[Highlandspring]

I thought the red/green lights for foot crossings were stand alone and not connected to the signalling?

There are both integrated (i.e. interlocked with the signalling system) and overlay (i.e. stand alone, not part of the signalling system) solutions for miniature red/green lights. The latter type, Bombardier’s EBI Gate 200 and Schweizer VAMOS, have only been approved for use on NR infrastructure for about the last six or seven years.

 

[Meerkat]

There are both integrated (i.e. interlocked with the signalling system) and overlay (i.e. stand alone, not part of the signalling system) solutions for miniature red/green lights. The latter type, Bombardier’s EBI Gate 200 and Schweizer VAMOS, have only been approved for use on NR infrastructure for about the last six or seven years.

The latter is what I was thinking about as being better than the horn option and probably not much more expensive (though I guess they need a possession for the detection to be installed?)

 

[talltim]

Thing is, any of these crossing tech systems need power, and I bet there isn’t any near.

 

[sjm77]

From the RSSB standards, for trains capable of over 160km/h the minimum audibility is defined as 115dB at 5m and the maximum 120dB at 5m.

Is it just me or does anyone else think this is the most stupid safety standard ever created!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Train horns are not supposed to warn people who are only 5m away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A proper well thought out safety standard should focus on those who it is designed to protect. I would have thought that the horn should have an audibility of maybe 90dB from, say, 400 meters away as that would be the typical distance from a foot crossing that a horn is sounded.

 

[Meerkat]

Is it just me or does anyone else think this is the most stupid safety standard ever created!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Train horns are not supposed to warn people who are only 5m away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A proper well thought out safety standard should focus on those who it is designed to protect. I would have thought that the horn should have an audibility of maybe 90dB from, say, 400 meters away as that would be the typical distance from a foot crossing that a horn is sounded.

Might be that 5m can be tested indoors in relatively standard environment with no background noise.
Bit trickier to do that at 400m.

 

[sjm77]

Might be that 5m can be tested indoors in relatively standard environment with no background noise.
Bit trickier to do that at 400m.

Obviously you are correct, testing at 5 metres indoors is easier, but the example of this particular news story demonstrates that the results are not applicable to the real world and therefore at least partly pointless. Maybe the indoor 5 metre test should also specify that the '115-120dB' noise range should be within a specific wavelength know to carry better to an observer 400 metres away? This safety standard definitely needs more thought process

 

[Annetts key]

The latter is what I was thinking about as being better than the horn option and probably not much more expensive (though I guess they need a possession for the detection to be installed?)

The overlay type is what I was referring to in post #37.

 

[skyhigh]

Obviously you are correct, testing at 5 metres indoors is easier, but the example of this particular news story demonstrates that the results are not applicable to the real world and therefore at least partly pointless. Maybe the indoor 5 metre test should also specify that the '115-120dB' noise range should be within a specific wavelength know to carry better to an observer 400 metres away? This safety standard definitely needs more thought process

I think you've missed the point that the issue here is the reliability of the loud tones on the horn, rather than the overall audibility.

The BBC article isn't totally clear. The issue isn't that the design of the horn on Class 80X is too quiet. It is that the failure rate in service is sufficiently high that Network Rail became concerned just before Christmas and temporarily closed a number of crossings with whistle board protection due to increased risk.

In addition to Cononley there are around 10 crossings across LNE route that have been impacted.

 

[driverd]

Admittedly the view in the Skipton direction is only about a quarter of that distance, but maybe some kind of warning system could be tied-in with the level crossing barriers at Cononley Station.

Yet, ironically, there isn't a whistle board at all in the up direction!

Simple and obvious solution to me is a differential TSR over the crossing. Yes, we'd have to create a 'new' differential, but for the limited numbers of crew that sign the route, surely this isn't beyond the wit of man?

20 TSR for the 1 80x movement per day, problem sorted. Obviously wouldn't be applicable at all the other crossing with more intense 80x movements whilst maintaining a timetable, but in this and perhaps other isolated instances, seems sensible?

 

[tiptoptaff]

Yet, ironically, there isn't a whistle board at all in the up direction!

Simple and obvious solution to me is a differential TSR over the crossing. Yes, we'd have to create a 'new' differential, but for the limited numbers of crew that sign the route, surely this isn't beyond the wit of man?

20 TSR for the 1 80x movement per day, problem sorted. Obviously wouldn't be applicable at all the other crossing with more intense 80x movements whilst maintaining a timetable, but in this and perhaps other isolated instances, seems sensible?

Problem is by doing that, you'd need to redo the entire timetable. SRTs would need to be rewritten for 80x traction on the route, and then the increased time written in to the timetable and then hashed out to see what conflicts that now causes, what reduction in headway it causes, and how that affects the wider area at conflict points.

Its not as simple as "just making it 20 for 80x"

 

[Elecman]

Thing is, any of these crossing tech systems need power, and I bet there isn’t any near.

There appears to be housing on one side of the crossing so power should be available

 

[Halish Railway]

Problem is by doing that, you'd need to redo the entire timetable.

Would it though? There is currently 3.5 of timetabled dwell time at Keighley on 1A13 0656 Skipton to London Kings Cross.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Would it though? There is currently 3.5 of timetabled dwell time at Keighley on 1A13 0656 Skipton to London Kings Cross.

Yes. Because being 3.5 minutes late means there's 0dwell time....

 

[Falcon1200]

IMHO, the most cost-effective solution in the case of Flosh Crossing at Cononley would be to cut down the large bushes (now small trees) which Network Rail and their predecessors have allowed to grow unchecked either side of the crossing over the last 20-25 years.

I'm surprised that is not done already; Ensuring there is the necessary visibility at such crossings is surely a fundamental part of every LC inspection ?

 

[DanNCL]

How easy would it be to diagram a 91 on the evening Skipton, temporarily ban 80x from the line and hence reopen the crossing? I appreciate that there would be work involved for the planners in this.

Hopefully by the time the 91s are eventually withdrawn, the horn reliability issue will be sorted.

It would need quite a bit of work, as at present the evening service is booked to form from an ex Lincoln arrival at Kings Cross, which can't be worked by a 91. There's also the issue that the empty stock working from Skipton goes to Doncaster Carr in the evening rather than Neville Hill, so changes to the empty stock working would be needed in order to allocate a 91. There probably would be a way to get a 91 on the evening Skipton service, but it wouldn't be an easy task.

Would it though? There is currently 3.5 of timetabled dwell time at Keighley on 1A13 0656 Skipton to London Kings Cross.

Yes. Because being 3.5 minutes late means there's 0dwell time....

That service isn't the problem, as it's booked to use a 91 and will remain so long term. The issue is with 1D26 18:03 Kings Cross to Skipton plus the return empty move to Doncaster Carr. Having taken a look at the timings on realtimetrains, there's a large enough gap behind 1D26 that slowing down for the foot crossing in Cononley won't be an issue, however the ECS back to Doncaster Carr would have to be retimed, as currently it leaves Skipton immediately in front of a Northern service.

 

[30907]

That service isn't the problem, as it's booked to use a 91 and will remain so long term. The issue is with 1D26 18:03 Kings Cross to Skipton plus the return empty move to Doncaster Carr. Having taken a look at the timings on realtimetrains, there's a large enough gap behind 1D26 that slowing down for the foot crossing in Cononley won't be an issue, however the ECS back to Doncaster Carr would have to be retimed, as currently it leaves Skipton immediately in front of a Northern service.

As it sits in Kirkstall Loop for 44 minutes, the only problem would be getting it out of the way at Skiptonn as there's a freight path close behind.