The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.
There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).
Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.
Lockwood wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 13:34
Saves money on paint?
When it comes to Level crossings the decision on whether a yellow box is needed or not is made at the design stage and CANNOT be altered on a whim.
Level crossings with barrier systems are only allowed to exist and have trains pass over them if a detailed document (called a Level Crossing Order' or sometimes a 'Section 66 Order') written in very legalistic language* is signed off by the Secretary of State for Transport.
If a yellow box is specified then it MUST be provided - but equally if it is not specified then one MUST NOT be added.
If circumstances have changed and the railway deam a yellow box is now needed then they must apply for a amended Level Crossing Order and the box cannot be applied until said order is ready
If an incident occurs at a crossing the document by which it is determined whether the crossing operated correctly is the 'Level Crossing Order' and NOT any engineering drawings / standards.
* Example:- "Road traffic signals consisting of three coloured lamps of the type prescribed in document xxx subsection A paragraph (ii) shall be placed at location yyyy"
That still doesn't answer the question though of why the exit yellow box markings are sometimes different to the entrance ones.
The MCB-OD crossings sound like they are automatic, but not Automatic. MCB, the signaller has to do something for closure. MCB-CCTV, the signaller has to do something for closure. MCB-OD, the equipment does closure itself.
So, whilst being a Manual crossing and not an Automatic, the process is done without human intervention?
Lockwood wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 10:48
The MCB-OD crossings sound like they are automatic, but not Automatic. MCB, the signaller has to do something for closure. MCB-CCTV, the signaller has to do something for closure. MCB-OD, the equipment does closure itself.
So, whilst being a Manual crossing and not an Automatic, the process is done without human intervention?
I repeat - the railway industry is VERY specific as to what 'Automatic' means in relation to level crossings.
What you think the term means is irrelevant - the key thing the industry asks itself is "are the railway signals interlocked with the level crossing equipment?"
Its a simple question to which there can only be a yes / no answer!
Last edited by Phil on Sun Aug 08, 2021 19:29, edited 1 time in total.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 14:48
That's the TSRGD marking requirement, not a cost saving exercise.
Thanks Bryn, so back to my original question...
Why does TSRGD specify the differentiation.?
My understanding - don't take as gospel - is the elongated X reinforces that is the wrong side of the road. See also why all LCs have double white lines where there's more width than 5.5m.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Phil wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 17:44
I repeat - the railway industry is VERY specific as to what 'Automatic' means in relation to level crossings.
What you think the term means is irrelevant - the key thing the industry asks itself is "are the railway signals interlocked with the level crossing equipment?"
Its a simple question to which there can only be a yes / no answer!
I hate to raise a thread from the dead but we have just had a very alarming incident on the line from Darlington to Saltburn where a train hit a car with no lights showing, there is no barrier there.
Fortunately the train was moving slowly and there were no injuries but this is the latest of a series of problems but previously all failed safe showing a red light to road traffic.
What was alarming is that in addition to the passenger trains that stop at every stations is that the line is also used by trains carrying potash from the Boulby mine and you would not want to argue with one of them ! They typically terminate at the Teesport bulk terminal.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 17:26
Something has gone very very wrong there, surely even if the train driver committed SPAD there'd be a trigger for the crossing lights?
This was a westbound train, so I would expect a treadle to be placed at an appropriate distance for the train wheels to activate the crossing. In the other direction it's probably the driver/guard operating a plunger on the platform that sets it going.
But there are normally warnings lights for the train driver to advise them whether the crossing has been successfully activated or not, aren't there?
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
It’s a gated crossing with sliding gates operated by the local signal cabin. The signals won’t clear to green unless the barriers are proven closed and the crossing observed clear.
AndyB wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 17:49
It’s a gated crossing with sliding gates operated by the local signal cabin. The signals won’t clear to green unless the barriers are proven closed and the crossing observed clear.
It looks like this crossing and the one on Redcar Lane are controlled by a common set of signals, and both have TPWS grids. If the train passed a red signal, the brakes would be applied. To proceed, TPWS needs to be reset - which is not supposed to be possible from the driving seat, the driver needs to stand up and go to a panel behind them. And they're supposed to talk to the signaller first.
Something has gone seriously wrong here, as there are multiple systems that should prevent a train entering a crossing without the barriers closed. The only thing I can think of is a miscommunication between the driver and the signaller. The articles has a comment from someone saying "The gates are always failing". If there was a problem with the gates, the signals would be held at red. It's possible that the driver incorrectly thought they'd been given verbal permission to proceed past the red signal - which wouldn't be unusual if failures are common - and seeing the Redcar Lane crossing correctly closed might not realise that the station crossing was still open.
Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 17:33
But there are normally warnings lights for the train driver to advise them whether the crossing has been successfully activated or not, aren't there?
This is only the case for "locally monitored" crossings, which are generally reserved for use on lightly used single track lines. This stands to reason as, in other circumstances, the signalling system ought to be doing the job instead.
Phil wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 17:44
I repeat - the railway industry is VERY specific as to what 'Automatic' means in relation to level crossings.
What you think the term means is irrelevant - the key thing the industry asks itself is "are the railway signals interlocked with the level crossing equipment?"
Its a simple question to which there can only be a yes / no answer!
I hate to raise a thread from the dead but we have just had a very alarming incident on the line from Darlington to Saltburn where a train hit a car with no lights showing, there is no barrier there.
Fortunately the train was moving slowly and there were no injuries but this is the latest of a series of problems but previously all failed safe showing a red light to road traffic.
This was caused by the signaller cautioning* a train past a red signal during a complete power failure to their control panel but forgetting that the barriers were not across the road.
* Given the increasing tendency for passengers to 'self evacuate' onto the tracks when being delayed for lengthy periods, particularly when close to stations its understandable that teh signaller would have wanted to get the train into Redcar ASAP
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 17:26
Something has gone very very wrong there, surely even if the train driver committed SPAD there'd be a trigger for the crossing lights?
Much depends on the age of the installation - and I'm not talking about the physical crossing equipment, I'm talking about the control equipment.
Take the level crossing over the A217 in Reigate - I can personally confirm that due to the controlling circuitry having been installed in the 1960s (even though the physical barriers were replaced in the 1990s) then if a train SPADs or is cautioned past the signals protecting then the level crossing lights will NOT activate as the necessary inputs to the level crossing circuitry are not present to trigger this.
This is considered acceptable as in theory the use of TPWS will prevent SPADs and any train being deliberately cautioned past a signal will be going slowly while the costs of retrofitting red road light activation (outside of other signalling works) is expensive.
Given the setup at Redcar is unique in the UK (even though the gates themselves look pretty modern) I suspect the control circuitry behind their is actually pretty old in design terms and lacks some of the more modern safeguards (like bringing on the road lights if a train is detected as passing a signal at red) which have been standard since the 1980s.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 17:26
Something has gone very very wrong there, surely even if the train driver committed SPAD there'd be a trigger for the crossing lights?
Much depends on the age of the installation - and I'm not talking about the physical crossing equipment, I'm talking about the control equipment.
Take the level crossing over the A217 in Reigate - I can personally confirm that due to the controlling circuitry having been installed in the 1960s (even though the physical barriers were replaced in the 1990s) then if a train SPADs or is cautioned past the signals protecting then the level crossing lights will NOT activate as the necessary inputs to the level crossing circuitry are not present to trigger this.
This is considered acceptable as in theory the use of TPWS will prevent SPADs and any train being deliberately cautioned past a signal will be going slowly while the costs of retrofitting red road light activation (outside of other signalling works) is expensive.
Given the setup at Redcar is unique in the UK (even though the gates themselves look pretty modern) I suspect the control circuitry behind their is actually pretty old in design terms and lacks some of the more modern safeguards (like bringing on the road lights if a train is detected as passing a signal at red) which have been standard since the 1980s.
That makes sense, thank you for clearing up. I suspect there'll be a lessons learned from this though, the railways are much better at responding to issues like this than highways tends to be.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 17:26
Something has gone very very wrong there, surely even if the train driver committed SPAD there'd be a trigger for the crossing lights?
Much depends on the age of the installation - and I'm not talking about the physical crossing equipment, I'm talking about the control equipment.
Take the level crossing over the A217 in Reigate - I can personally confirm that due to the controlling circuitry having been installed in the 1960s (even though the physical barriers were replaced in the 1990s) then if a train SPADs or is cautioned past the signals protecting then the level crossing lights will NOT activate as the necessary inputs to the level crossing circuitry are not present to trigger this.
This is considered acceptable as in theory the use of TPWS will prevent SPADs and any train being deliberately cautioned past a signal will be going slowly while the costs of retrofitting red road light activation (outside of other signalling works) is expensive.
Given the setup at Redcar is unique in the UK (even though the gates themselves look pretty modern) I suspect the control circuitry behind their is actually pretty old in design terms and lacks some of the more modern safeguards (like bringing on the road lights if a train is detected as passing a signal at red) which have been standard since the 1980s.
That makes sense, thank you for clearing up. I suspect there'll be a lessons learned from this though, the railways are much better at responding to issues like this than highways tends to be.
There are always lessons to be learned from every incident, even if its something as simple as to re-brief the importance of 'taking 5' and not rush when dealing with degraded equipment.
Its also important to remember that any level crossing whose control circuitry has been installed / modernised (or replaced due to re-signalling schemes) after the 1980s will have the necessary circuitry installed to bring on the red road lights if a signal is passed at danger.
The problem is there simply isn't the money nor the necessary capacity in the signalling industry to go round and replace everything to the latest standard and as such providing the risks are assessed to be low then some 'sub standard' installations will inevitably remain.
