Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/2016

Discussion concerning level crossings

Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/2016

Unread postby micron » Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:33 pm

Mike Hodgson wrote:Sounds like it wasn't just the accident crossing that had its gates out of use. S&T Engineeer said he had heard product approval had been withdrawn for EBIgates - would that be sufficient reason for these devices to be bagged out of use at existing crossings, or would it only affect new works?


No, they are ALL signed out of use, across the country.
micron
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:55 am
Location: Essex

Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/2016

Unread postby scarpa » Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:24 pm

Scientific evidence revealed MSL level crossings displaying Red light for an excessive time would more likely cause crossing users to disregard the red light and cross .A bolder reflective notice inviting crossing users to contact the signalman would be more advantageous if crossing lights remained at red more than 5 minutes. Crossings should have yodels as well as the lights. If a train took longer after striking in during present operation would the controls be effective in the opposite direction if Dark operation applied to the crossing?
scarpa
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:07 pm

Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/2016

Unread postby Mike Hodgson » Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:00 am

I must be missing the point here somewhere. The crossings concerned were presumably only fitted with MSL in the first place because of users didn't get good enough warning of approaching trains due to sighting issues etc, and so it would follow that their withdrawal is only temporary pending some sort of upgrade.

As long as there is a working phone, at least the more responsibly-minded users can enquire if there's anything about. But unless the green is showing false clear, I would have thought they were still safer than nothing when phones fail. So doesn't signing them out of use increase the risk to responsible users in an attempt to protect the more foolhardy?

As these crossings are mostly used by known residents, I hope that the individuals concerned have had some communication explaining the situation and the way NR wants them to cross in the interim.
User avatar
Mike Hodgson
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2411
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: N Herts

Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/2016

Unread postby Yabbadabba » Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:03 pm

These crossing are not MSL crossings, but EUWC. Our ones were put in where the crossing were well used and that the ergonomics deemed that the workloads for those crossing would be to much if it was worked solely by telephone only, when they increased the area of coverage of our panel and nothing to do with sighting, just signaller workload, (which was the same reason that we got an MCB-OD instead of MCB-CCTV).
Yabbadabba
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:02 pm

Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/2016

Unread postby AN106 » Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:02 am

Yabbadabba wrote:These crossing are not MSL crossings, but EUWC. Our ones were put in where the crossing were well used and that the ergonomics deemed that the workloads for those crossing would be to much if it was worked solely by telephone only, when they increased the area of coverage of our panel and nothing to do with sighting, just signaller workload, (which was the same reason that we got an MCB-OD instead of MCB-CCTV).


Interesting. We started a project putting Ebigate 200 crossings in, and were told to call them MSLs, not EUWCs. Somebody made the comment that Enhanced User Worked Crossings implied that you needed Enhanced Users.
User avatar
AN106
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:50 am

Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/2016

Unread postby S&TEngineer » Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:25 am

I have checked the NR PADS (Parts and Drawings System) database and the EBIGate 200 system had its product approval withdrawn on 08 October 2015. It states that all current installations should be decommissioned and the lights/control box bagged out of use. It doesn't give a reason for the withdrawal.

The crossings are (were) known as either standard Red/Green MSL or Red/Green MSL- On Demand

As I was typing this response I received notification of the RAIB investigation remit. This states that the tractor driver was given permission to cross https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coll ... r-thetford
Regards,
S&TEngineer
-----------------------------------------------------
Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3
User avatar
S&TEngineer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1555
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 8:17 pm
Location: Somewhere in the far South West

Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/2016

Unread postby Mike Stone » Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Mike Stone
Mike Stone
Rest-day relief
Rest-day relief
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:50 pm

Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/2016

Unread postby Yabbadabba » Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:14 pm

AN106 wrote:
Yabbadabba wrote:These crossing are not MSL crossings, but EUWC. Our ones were put in where the crossing were well used and that the ergonomics deemed that the workloads for those crossing would be to much if it was worked solely by telephone only, when they increased the area of coverage of our panel and nothing to do with sighting, just signaller workload, (which was the same reason that we got an MCB-OD instead of MCB-CCTV).


Interesting. We started a project putting Ebigate 200 crossings in, and were told to call them MSLs, not EUWCs. Somebody made the comment that Enhanced User Worked Crossings implied that you needed Enhanced Users.


I have to correct myself our three are designated MSL-EUWC on the panel including one that isn't an EBIgate 200
Yabbadabba
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/

Unread postby Mike Hodgson » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:12 pm

So what does "Enhanced" mean - greater crossing safety or lower signaller workload?
User avatar
Mike Hodgson
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2411
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: N Herts

Re: Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/

Unread postby AndyB » Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:53 pm

I don't like how the panel below the plunger is worded. As it stands, it could be misunderstood as:

"Wait for Green If no light. Do not cross - phone crossing operator"

Better to have a blank line between "Wait for Green" and "If no light", or, better, a line, and I would suggest a repetition of the slow vehicles and animals warning.

In general, EUWC appears to be closely related to conventional Pedestrian precinct rising bollard controls. Not something most drivers have to cope with, but nor is it rocket science.

However, I don't really understand why UWC can't have gates locked with the signals in such a way that if the gates are closed or the barriers are down they stay that way if the light is red. I fully understand not wanting barriers to descend automatically due to escape routes, subject to timeouts.
AndyB
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:08 pm

Re: Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/

Unread postby LlaniGraham » Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:11 pm

AndyB wrote:However, I don't really understand why UWC can't have gates locked with the signals in such a way that if the gates are closed or the barriers are down they stay that way if the light is red. I fully understand not wanting barriers to descend automatically due to escape routes, subject to timeouts.


Because most UWC's don't have power supplies to them!
User avatar
LlaniGraham
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:00 pm
Location: Llanidloes, Powys

Re: Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/

Unread postby AndyB » Wed Jul 20, 2016 6:23 am

Graham, if they have a red light, they have a power supply.
AndyB
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:08 pm

Re: Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/

Unread postby LlaniGraham » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:37 pm

AndyB wrote:Graham, if they have a red light, they have a power supply.


None of the UWC's I controlled had red lights, therefore they had no power to them. Likewise the Boxes either side of mine.
I suspect that the majority of UWC's don't have power to them.
User avatar
LlaniGraham
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:00 pm
Location: Llanidloes, Powys

Re: Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/

Unread postby guard_jamie » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:23 pm

The method of working is so different between a red/green light crossing and a phone-operated crossing they don't really hear comparison - although I've always been slightly spooked by the idea that you could spy the green, get out and open the gates, meantime the lamp flicks to red...
doing nothing in particular but doing it very well
User avatar
guard_jamie
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Feb 3, 2008 12:30 pm
Location: Herefordshire

Re: Accident at Hockham Road level crossing, Norfolk, 10/04/

Unread postby StevieG » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:56 am

guard_jamie wrote:The method of working is so different between a red/green light crossing and a phone-operated crossing they don't really hear comparison - although I've always been slightly spooked by the idea that you could spy the green, get out and open the gates, meantime the lamp flicks to red...
Indeed. As I may have mentioned before in these forums, I used to know a certain ECML UWC('Rural Barriers'), still there AFAIK, and it was quite disturbing to watch when the driver of an agricultural tractor pumped the barriers up with the green light lit, but by the time he was back in the driving seat it had gone red, he understandably stayed put, and 30-odd seconds later an HST roared across at 125mph while the barriers were still fully raised.
I wouldn't think the train drivers were fully comfortable approaching the crossing and seeing that situation either, but presumably soon got to know that it was not all that rare : .... 'just hoping that tractor doesn't start to move ! .... '.

[Nothing like the Hockham Road situation of course : Potential alert of thread drift acknowledged! ]
BZOH

/
\ \ \ //\ \
/// \ \ \ \
StevieG
Double-manned box
Double-manned box
 
Posts: 2958
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:30 am
Location: ex-GNR territory in N. Herts.

PreviousNext

Return to Level crossings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests