Signals

THE SIGNAL BOX


Railway signalling discussion

Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Discussion concerning level crossings

Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby Weichenhebel » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:31 am

Weichenhebel
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby MRFS » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:43 am

When did Oakham gain OHLE? Look at the stock photo. :shock: At least the BBC have moved on from using 67TS to illustrate every UndergrounD story. :roll:
ND: Why is there a door handle on the inside of my airing cupboard?
MF: Because it's the fire exit from Narnia.

I like David Lynch films. I don't consider incomprehension to be a barrier to enjoyment.
User avatar
MRFS
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3306
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:29 pm
Location: ex cathedra cantuar

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby Weichenhebel » Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:11 pm

There is the "recorded offence" (i.e. notifiable to the Home Office) and offences/crimes which are ‘recordable’ on the Police National Computer.

I have no idea which of these definitions (if any) is used in the BBC article.
Weichenhebel
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby John Hinson » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:40 pm

At least the complaints don't include me! I was there on 1/1/12, one day outside their period of observation . . .

I was struck at the time by the complex nature of the roads approaching the crossing (there is a junction immediately either side of the railway) and this has to be a factor in the offences here. Drivers need to be looking all around them for approaching cars and this no doubt reduces their ability to watch the crossing lights.

As the barriers are manually controlled, this kind of issue is surely trivial against incidents at automatic and unstaffed crossings.

John
Image
‹(•¿•)›
User avatar
John Hinson
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5396
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: at my computer

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby Weichenhebel » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:53 pm

signalman wrote: I was there on 1/1/12, one day outside their period of observation . . .

Surely you mean you will be there on 1 January 2012 :D
Weichenhebel
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby Peter Jordan » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:55 pm

As there are folk from RAIB on this site, perhaps they can take the DI's perceptive comments on board and begin a dialogue with the relevant uthorities to see what alterations/imporvements should be made in the environs of this crossing. It sounds as though some are needed.

Peter Jordan
Peter Jordan
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:54 pm

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby John Hinson » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:35 pm

Weichenhebel wrote:
signalman wrote: I was there on 1/1/12, one day outside their period of observation . . .

Surely you mean you will be there on 1 January 2012 :D

No. I meant I was there 1/1/11. Perhaps I was the first offender!

Peter Jordan wrote:As there are folk from RAIB on this site, perhaps they can take the DI's perceptive comments on board and begin a dialogue with the relevant uthorities to see what alterations/imporvements should be made in the environs of this crossing. It sounds as though some are needed.

I'm sure this is one of many crossings which requires particular attention - for instance AHBs would never be allowed here. But as far as I am concerned (and it isn't up to me) the crossing is as safe as it can be. I don't believe there is any inherent danger for the reasons I already stated and the BTP spokesman's comments are distictly questionable. How does a red light cause injury unless the signalman makes a mistake too?

The only alternative I can think of would be to close two of the four roads and that wouldn't go down too well.

One thing is certain - there were no "red light running" offences when there were wheel-worked gates here!

John
Image
‹(•¿•)›
User avatar
John Hinson
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5396
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: at my computer

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby Peter Jordan » Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:19 pm

Of course not! but then the Signalman did have to put up with those pesky people from Airfix roaming around and measuring everything.

Peter Jordan
Peter Jordan
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:54 pm

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby Stuart Johnson » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:47 pm

Peter Jordan wrote:As there are folk from RAIB on this site, perhaps they can take the DI's perceptive comments on board and begin a dialogue with the relevant uthorities to see what alterations/imporvements should be made in the environs of this crossing. It sounds as though some are needed.

Peter Jordan


We only get involved when it has all gone wrong. Pre-emptive action is really the job of ORR (HMRI), though RAIB does have a class investigation into AOCLs due for publication shortly, arisng out of the triple fatality at Halkirk.

As the DI says, this sort of thing at a MCB crossing, though wrong and regrettable, is not really much of a risk to people and the railway: cars may get dented by descending barriers, but I am not going to lose any sleep over that.
Stuart J
User avatar
Stuart Johnson
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:47 pm
Location: Metroland

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby Weichenhebel » Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:36 am

Oakham level crossing 'cheats' targeted in awareness day:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-13712900
Weichenhebel
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby JG Morgan » Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:26 pm

Don't forget - there was a serious SPAD (maybe two) at Oakham crossing a few years ago. The only reference I can find to it is on another forum in January 2010:
"On another note, the Oakham main full barrier crossing was subject to a serious Spad a few years back by a HST125 on diversion route training and resulted in repositioning of some signals and changing approach procedures for stopping trains. Only by luck did it not kill a policeman and mother and child crossing at the time and served as a reminder to local drivers as to why you dont enter an LC unless you have a clear exit, even if it is interlocked" (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread. ... 675&page=8)

The changes made since then have, presumably, reduced the risk still further.
JG Morgan
Branch line box
Branch line box
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Jun 4, 2011 12:33 am

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby Peter Jordan » Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:33 pm

Hmm, that posting about a serious SPAD makes me wonder about the Up road at Camborne where Roskear Junction's Up Main Home Signal (colour -light) is just before the level crossing and trains can approach it with the barriers raised and pedestrian/vehicle traffic using the crossing just a few yards away.

Peter Jordan
Peter Jordan
Main line box
Main line box
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 6:54 pm

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby John Hinson » Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:57 pm

Peter Jordan wrote:Hmm, that posting about a serious SPAD makes me wonder about the Up road at Camborne where Roskear Junction's Up Main Home Signal (colour -light) is just before the level crossing and trains can approach it with the barriers raised and pedestrian/vehicle traffic using the crossing just a few yards away.

I'm puzzled:
  • Level crossings have never constituted an obstruction of clearing points or overlaps
  • All Signals Passed at Danger (except when authorised, of course) are serious.
I would like to know a lot more about the said incident at Oakham and learn what was so special about it that it warranted revisions to the signalling there but not, apparently, anywhere else.

John
Image
‹(•¿•)›
User avatar
John Hinson
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5396
Joined: Thu Nov 8, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: at my computer

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby Keith » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:03 pm

signalman wrote:
  • Level crossings have never constituted an obstruction of clearing points or overlaps
I can remember cases of barriers having to descend as the train approached, even with the protecting signal at danger. Unfortunately, I can't remember which specific crossings. Certainly, there was an official desire not to have crossings within the overlap, which implies that they should constitute an obstruction.
BR ER Instruction CP20 wrote:The protecting signals should desirably be overlap-free of the crossing and in any case not less than 50 metres before it, except...immediately beyond a station platform...25 metres
I remember this being applied on ScR and I believe it was generally so (perhaps apart from the WR :roll: ).
Keith
User avatar
Keith
Special Class Relief
Special Class Relief
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:44 am
Location: approximately 436 miles from Keith, bearing 165

Re: Oakham level crossing warning as offences rise

Unread postby Nick Allsop » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:26 pm

Oakham has seen quite a rise in level crossing incidents, cars have been damaged by descending barriers and motorists frequently just ignore the lights and put their foot down. Worrying part is, if they do it here are they just as likley to do it at an automatic crossing where the train can be there in seconds?

The SPaD a few years ago was a very lucky escape. At the time, on the up road at Oakham the signals were - semaphore distant (1) beneath Langham Junctions Up Home, semaphore home signal (2) approaching the station and protecting the connection off the up goods and up starter - a colour light immediately outside the box on the approach to the crossing, crucially situated on the right hand side but bracketed across the down main.

The train involved was a diverted HST driven by a St Pancras driver. He had worked that way in the morning with a booked sunday diversion, however the engineering work in the Market Harborough area over-ran and he had to work back that way as well. Turns out St Pancras men at the time only ever worked that way on the down for the reason just stated.

The train was following another up service and had caught it by Langham. Trains via Corby take a while to clear Manton Junction as they cross over at Manton North and run 'bang road' through the tunnel to the box where they rejoin the double track to Corby. Therefore, as the train approached Oakham, it occupied the berth track circuit. The signalman waited a few seconds and pulled the semaphore home signal to drop it to the starter as he was expecting TOS imminently. He then went to lower the barriers in anticipation but was very surprised to see the HST accelerating towards him. I think the lights were on and the first two barriers were just about ready to pass as he went over the crossing, just as the previous train was clearing Manton. Turns out he had just forgotten about the starter.

There was another similar incident where a test train from Derby RTC went over the crossing with the barriers lowering, the slot mechanism on the weight bars of Langham Junctionshome signal had become defective and given a false 'off' on Oakhams up distant... These two incidents saw Oakhams Up home signal replaced with a colour light situated further out and better sighted. then that was SPaDed by a light engine.....
Regards,

Nick.


WALNUT-REDE
User avatar
Nick Allsop
Crossing box
Crossing box
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:57 am
Location: Darkest Staffordshire

Next

Return to Level crossings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest