Rod Evans wrote:
I am not sure if I have read this correctly or understood precisely what is being said.
Are you saying there is no fail safe signal to advise the train driver that the level crossing barriers are down thus preventing vehicle access across his path? Your post only says the train triggers the barriers to drop 30 seconds before it gets to the crossing then it trusts to luck as there is no feedback and no time to react!!
Basically, yes. In effect, the crossing doesn't exist from the point of view of the signalling, so although route knowledge will let a driver know they're approaching a crossing, there's no specific signal indication that the crossing is there, that the barriers are lowered, or that there is nothing blocking the track.
Remember, if the barriers start to close with vehicles still on the crossing, they aren't trapped on the crossing - that's why the barriers only stretch halfway across the road. If you're travelling in a slow moving vehicle, you're supposed to call the signalbox first to let them know you'll be blocking the line for longer than usual. In queues of traffic, the crossing should be treated as a box junction (IIRC some crossings are marked as such) and you should wait behind the stop line until you know you have room to clear the crossing on the far side of the line. In normal traffic conditions, the 30s trigger period should be more than sufficient for a vehicle who's just started crossing to safely clear the far side of the tracks before the train passes.
This trust-based method of crossing protection falls apart in certain very specific circumstances.
1. a vehicle breaks down on the crossing, and there is insufficient time for the signalbox to be contacted and trains stopped.
2. an impatient driver deliberately swerves around the barriers after they've been lowered, too late to clear the crossing before the train passes.
3. a driver deliberately leaves their vehicle on the crossing.
Bear in mind that unmonitored crossings are generally only used on roads (public and private) where the level of traffic is usually very low, or on busier suburban roads where the maximum line speed is low and trains would have a good chance of stopping if the crossing were blocked. With the generally low levels of road traffic involved, case 1 is extremely unlikely - the vehicle would have to break down on a specific stretch of road within a specific time period. Case 2 is also unlikely - yes there are too many brainless drivers who think it's OK to play chicken with trains, but again there's just a short time window in which acting like a prick will actually result in a collision. Case 3 just isn't something you want to think about, even given the recent events. But even if we re-engineer every single level crossing to prevent this from happening, there are still ways for someone to get onto the tracks if they really want to, so whilst we might be able to stop case 3 from happening at level crossing sites, we wouldn't be stopping it from happening elsewhere on the network.
So yes, unmonitored crossings CAN be a threat to rail safety, but in the vast majority of cases only if road users choose to put themselves and the railway at risk. How far should we go to secure the rail network against acts of stupidity? How much tax revenue are we prepared to let the government sink into this? How big an increase in fares are rail users prepared to accept before they decide they're better off driving? What effect would this have on road safety...
Quote:
With the above in mind I am more concerned now than previously and the need for a flip up barrier to remove all obstructions on the line looks more necessary than ever.
In which case you'd need interlocked signalling to prevent the train from approaching if the flip-up barrier was still down, and you'd also need visual monitoring of the crossing so that the signalman could prove the crossing was clear before releasing the signal. Installing a full-barrier crossing would also provide these safeguards, using existing proven technology that the railways are familiar with. Now you need to ask yourself why the railways haven't already done this, and whether those same reasons would also apply to the introduction of any other protection scheme with similar resource requirements.