Idiot certainly. But it is possible for a train to get very near without being heard (if the wind is against it for example) and to underestimate its approach speed.
True, but the gates were against him so that is no excuse... on an unmanned foot crossing perhaps, but not there!
|
|
Why not place enforcement cameras in front of the gates? The thought of a fine or a dangerous driving charge should be enough to deter most people.
|
Closest I've been was when I lived in Gloucester and used to cycle The road by the hospital is a nice downhill stretch with a railway crossing at the bottom.
As Gloucester is almost a branch station any train not going to Wales enters and leaves the same way. When this happens the barriers used to stay down while the train entered the station, took on passengers then pulled out again. This took ages, so getting caught was best avoided.
I once saw the lights beginning to flash as I was descending the hill at a fair lick, I pedalled like crazy and the far gates just missed the top of my head.
Not big, not clever but it's the sort of thing you do when young. If there had been a camera I'd probably have asked for a copy to see just how close it was!
|
As Gloucester is almost a branch station any train not going to Wales enters and leaves the same way. When this happens the barriers used to stay down while the train entered the station took on passengers then pulled out again. This took ages so getting caught was best avoided.
Dave, please don't take this the wrong way, but the above shows that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and proves why we still have accidents at level crossings...
The gates staying closed at the location described could also (and is probably more likely) due to either a through freight train off the Lydney line or another train coming into or leaving the station rather than just waiting for one to leave from platform 1... Thats what killed those two girls a year or two back (not at Gloucester - somewhere in the east of England), there was a train in the platform and they assumed that the fact the gates were still closed related to that train... but in fact it didn't, there was another train on the adjacent line, which regretably they found out to their cost....
At the end of the day, if the gates are shut then don't cross, full stop... the train will always come off better than you!
Edited by b308 on 10/02/2009 at 12:48
|
|
I once waited for ages and ages at a level crossing in Spain. In the end the signalman came out of his box, looked up and down the track, shrugged and opened the gates!
|
|
There will always be idiots, but there needn't always be gates that fail to prevent circumvention. Seems to me that all gates ought to be replaced by hydraulic barriers that rise a metre out of the ground as a single device across the whole width of the road and any pedestrian footway.
|
No problems with that, or Bob Crow's suggestion that all level crossings are replaced by bridges... but it should be the road users that pay for it, as its them that can't obey the road signs...
I somehow think that its not top of the Gov's list of priorities, though!
|
|
|
>All gates ought to be replaced by hydraulic barriers ..
and if you are caught 'inside' when the barrier rises?
|
|
|
|
|
>The gates were against him so that is no excuse...
I'm not trying to make an excuse, just an explanation. It's the same as playing chicken across a motorway - there are always some people who like that kind of kicks.
|
I'm not trying to make an excuse just an explanation.
then why say this:
"But it is possible for a train to get very near without being heard (if the wind is against it for example) and to underestimate its approach speed"
He had no reason to be there so that is irrellevent... sorry if i misinterpreted you, but that sounds like making an excuse for him trying to cross when he shouldn't... I take your point is if was just to highlight that trains can creep up on you, but I've read that para differently to the way it was intended?! ;)
Edited by b308 on 10/02/2009 at 15:35
|
The history of accidents on the railway has always resulted in new laws and safety procedures....with hindsight. The two poor girls at Elsenham were pre-occupied with a trip out and not missing their train. They opened the wicket gate and stepped into the path of an express which ,I have no doubt, they didn't hear. A simple electrical interlocking between gates and signals would have prevented this tragedy. There is a crossing on a little used lane on Chat Moss where the motorist has to open the gates but cannot unless the adjacent signal man unlocks them. There will always be some situation arising which 'We never thought that would happen' applies Even a major tragedy like Hixon level crossing on 6th January 1968 with the deaths of 8 people and 44 injured, occurred because nobody had given a thought to the situation which arose.
I always sense a little nervous anticipation when crossing the railway just in case this is the one time things have gone wrong !
Ted
|
Ted, the vast majority of accidents at crossings occur because the people using them ignored the warnings....
The gates were still shut and they chose to ignore that fact and the warning signs and cross, yes, intelocking the gates would have cured it, but as with everything else there's a (substantial) cost...
Hixon was caused by the road user ignoring the road signs and driving his artic with a transformer onto the crossing without telling the signaller and then stopping... again the crossing users fault for ignoring the warnings...
Thought was given to safe working of the crossings in both cases, but, rightly or wrongly, it was assumed that the people using the crossings would actually take notice of the signs and warnings and act in accordance with the instructions... regretably as those two examples and the video in the OP shows that people don't...
I'm not sure there will ever be an answer, the cost of "complete" protection for all crossings would be far too high for anyone to consider, so i suspect that these things will continue to happen, I can only hope from my own, and my colleagues' sakes, that some people will take notice and stop "running" the crossings...
Edited by b308 on 10/02/2009 at 19:24
|
>>Hixon was caused by the road user ignoring the road signs and driving his artic with a transformer onto the crossing without telling the signaller and then stopping
Was it not the case, as Ted says below, that the signs requiring drivers of large / slow vehicles to stop and call the signalman were not introduced until after the Hixon accident?
I inferred what what I have just read that the direct cause was that the crossing sequence from lights flashing to train arriving at the crossing was about half the time that the (very large) transporter, travelling at 2mph, needed to get across. The indirect cause was arguably the lack of understanding of the police escort who did not appreciate this point.
Edited by Manatee on 10/02/2009 at 22:53
|
Was it not the case as Ted says below that the signs requiring drivers of large / slow vehicles to stop and call the signalman were not introduced until after the Hixon accident?
There were signs there, as Ted indicattes, but they were not "robust" enough and were ignored by those concerned - in discussing these two cases we are in danger if ignoring the fact that the vast majority of accidents at crossings are caused by the road user ignoring signs... whatever their "excuse" (be it in a rush, playing chicken, etc) they are invariably at fault... in todays "blame" culture trying to justify some of these stupid antics does no-one any favours... least of all us on the railways who have to pick up the pieces when the train crew arrive home...
As I am far too close to this and my views are probably far too strong for some people as it blames the motorist/pedestrian this is my last word on the matter.
|
|
|
|
>Then why say this:
We clearly use English differently, B308. I have no interest in whether this culprit should have tried to cross the line; we can't be sure whether it was pure devilment, poor judgment or plain stupidity. And he might, just possibly, be deaf.
HE had a 'reason' (rationale if you prefer) to be there: like the proverbial chicken, he wanted to cross. He had no RIGHT, but that is different. I was just saying that despite the barriers, he may not have heard the train coming, and believed he had plenty of time. I was not trying to excuse or justify his actions, only explain them.
|
|
Fine, Andrew, the way it was added to the "idiot" bit made it sound to me that you were giving him an excuse, I see that you didn't intend it that way! Sorry!
|
B308 The fact is that the 'wicket gates' for pedestrians are rarely left open and usually have some sort of spring return, leaving the pedestrian to open them,
I agree, at Hixon, the accident was completely the fault of those concerned with the special movement of this monstrous load. Neither the 5 man crew, the operators or the escorting police gave a moment's thought to the fact that the 120 ton load with minimal ground clearance would have problems crossing at 2 mph. The crossing had been installed the year before and notices had been sent to the police and other interested parties as well as local schools. The Ministry admitted that no one had brought up the problems of abnormal loads in the planning of lifting barrier crossings. I have the report in front ov me and it reads like an accident waiting to happen somewhere, sometime. Hixon brought about the rule that all wide, over-height, abnormal or slow moving vehicles had to stop and use the telephone.
Ted
|
I digress here but during my recent train journey across Switzerland (See Volvo taxi post)I happened to remark that trains there, and in France, drive on the left.
Apparently there were studies done on this and, in the same way that water vanishes down the plughole one way in the northern hemisphere and the other in the southern, passing trains create a vortex which is minimalised if they drive on the left.
Has anybody heard of this? Was it a wind-up?
|
Trains in Britain 'drive' on the left as well.....always have done, apart from some special workings.
Ted
|
I think you have missed my point, Ted.
|
|
|
A wind-up. Despite the Napoleonic heritage, continental trains drive on the left, and (except in Spain and Portugal) use British gauge, largely because many early lines were built by British engineers. Any imagined vortex effects would be far too minimal to be worth the cost of switching on the right.
Edited by Andrew-T on 10/02/2009 at 23:33
|
|
Thanks AT - shall chastise my informant. I was thinking that the decision to drive trains on the left was probably taken many years ago - before wind-tunnels and aerodynamic studies.
|
Having Sky+, I tend not to watch adverts much these days. If you're like me and haven't seen the advert yet, I've just done a quick google, and hopefully this is it:-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6OzIszLgYw
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 11/02/2009 at 00:01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
