Level Crossing control - Cottingham

[howard9f]

Dear all,
Apologies for raising this subject again, but i though some members would like an update on this topic, which i raised in 2013.

In April this year, i noticed the topic had reached the local press "the Hull Daily Mail' with a heading that signalling staff were to be retrained to be more smarter in the operation of remote controlled level crossings in Cottingham on the Hull to Bridlington line. I attach a link to the article, as usual with journalism it lacks any technical detail whatsoever.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Cottingh ... story.html

The issue is that the two level crossings which are located either side of Cottingham Station, where all trains stop, cause immense delays to road traffic, at peak times, 2 miles in length. I was pointing out that in the days when control was local, from Cottingham North signal box and a Crossing Keeper at Thwaite Gates, the signalmen had control of the crossings down to a fine art, minimising the time crossings were closed and therefore minimising traffic delays.

Well, last week i was visiting relations in Cottingham and observed on two days, two complete different methods of operation of these crossings. The crossings are operated by Beverley station signal box, some 6 miles away and both crossings have CCTV cameras. On the afternoon of the 24th December I observed for both up (Hull bound) and down (Beverley bound) trains, the two crossings were operated simultaneously, therefore for the forward direction crossing, the barriers were closed for much longer than necessary, near 5 minutes in the case of the forward crossing. Remember all trains stop at the station.

Then in the late evening on the 28th December, i observed both up and down trains, the crossings were operated independently and the forward bound crossing was initiated to close as the train approached the station platform. Perfect !

I can only conclude that there must have been two different signalmen on duty, who operated the crossings very differently.

I think the last time i posted this, someone responded that they now like to run trains in on green signals, and to do otherwise could be considered a SPAD trap. I do have some difficulty with this, when the train driver knows he has to stop at the station regardless of the signal state in front of him.

Compliments of the Season to one and all
Howard

[StevieG]

Howard, I would only offer that one reason could be, that a calling train might partially or completely overrun the platform, owing to the driver misjudging his braking for the stop or be caught out by unexpected 'exceptional railhead conditions'.
Should this happen with a signal showing any proceed aspect at the platform end, then once it has stopped, nothing unsafe has occurred as far as signalling, a level crossing, and the line ahead are concerned.
But in the same situation, if the train also passes a signal at Danger, the reporting, form-filling (& delay) is more onerous. If any assertion about poor railhead is made, cautioning of trains and summoning someone to examine the rails will be initiated, and the occurrence could (will?) result in a SPAD going on the driver's record : ;If, in SPADding, the train also encroaches on a LX while it's still open to road before coming to a stand, the more serious consequences are obvious.

[howard9f]

Thanks Stevie

[John Hinson]

Another factor that might be taken into account is that if it is habitual to run into the station on cautionary signals there is a higher risk of a "ding ding and away" incident on the one day in a thousand when the signal is kept red for a good reason.

John

[StevieG]

Another factor that might be taken into account is that if it is habitual to run into the station on cautionary signals there is a higher risk of a "ding ding and away" incident on the one day in a thousand when the signal is kept red for a good reason.

John

Very good point John.