Level crossing stupidity...

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

This is an awkward area.  regrettably RSSB in their infinite wisdom have removed the original classification of such crossings and now simply refer to them as 'user worked' (UWC) and the most recent standard goes on about 'phones.    One possibly useful reference is this one from RAIB -

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summary-of-learning-1-design-and-operation-of-user-worked-level-crossings/summary-of-learning-1-design-and-operation-of-user-worked-level-crossings

 

Are you saying they were no longer drawing a legal distinction between public level crossings and occupation or accommodation crossings? 

 

It isn't always obvious that a private road is private.  Given that occupation crossings need to be used by postmen, courier companies, taxis,  etc, it seems logical that they should be easily understood by all drivers, regardless of their legal status, and it seems to me unreasonable to expect a landowner to tell pizza delivery drivers how to work the crossing.  The issue should be covered by highway code/driving tests.  Sorry about the picture quality, but I have seen the local  dustcart at this User-Worked Crossing (press the button to raise the barriers and check you've still got a green light before crossing) at Langford on the ECML near Biggleswade.  I've not been there for several years, so I'm not sure it's still like that; I'm pretty sure the Inspectorate were unhappy at this crossing design  on a 125mph route.

 

 

In the case of accommodation crossings connecting two pieces of land belonging to the same owner, it is a little more reasonable to expect the farmer to instruct  his staff on safety in crossing from one field to the next on the tractor, but if they are arranged the same way as occupation crossings, that should be simpler for the workforce to understand.

 

Crossings can also change in character over time - the 1958 enquiry into Funtham's Lane accident (3 fatalities and there had been at least 5 previous accidents there) was legally an occupation road but it had effectively become a public road.  The crossing later became the first CCTV crossing supervised by Kings Dyke box, where the A605 crossing also had more than its fair share of crossing incidents (replaced a couple of years ago by a bridge)

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=1010

 

 

[SM42]

On 09/08/2024 at 16:23, RJS1977 said:

Actually 500 yards (over a quarter of a mile) is quite a lengthy detour for a pedestrian, especially if said pedestrian is not quite as mobile as they used to be.

 

If they aren't that mobile, should they be using the foot crossing?

 

Allowing more time for the longer journey is a lot safer and don't forget as we get older some of our other faculties may degrade making the crossing a bigger risk. 

 

So which is better? 

 

Walk further take longer and be safer or take a risk you won't see, hear or be able to get out of the way of the approaching train

 

Andy

[The Stationmaster]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Are you saying they were no longer drawing a legal distinction between public level crossings and occupation or accommodation crossings? 

 

It isn't always obvious that a private road is private.  Given that occupation crossings need to be used by postmen, courier companies, taxis,  etc, it seems logical that they should be easily understood by all drivers, regardless of their legal status, and it seems to me unreasonable to expect a landowner to tell pizza delivery drivers how to work the crossing.  The issue should be covered by highway code/driving tests.  Sorry about the picture quality, but I have seen the local  dustcart at this User-Worked Crossing (press the button to raise the barriers and check you've still got a green light before crossing) at Langford on the ECML near Biggleswade.  I've not been there for several years, so I'm not sure it's still like that; I'm pretty sure the Inspectorate were unhappy at this crossing design  on a 125mph route.

 

 

In the case of accommodation crossings connecting two pieces of land belonging to the same owner, it is a little more reasonable to expect the farmer to instruct  his staff on safety in crossing from one field to the next on the tractor, but if they are arranged the same way as occupation crossings, that should be simpler for the workforce to understand.

 

Crossings can also change in character over time - the 1958 enquiry into Funtham's Lane accident (3 fatalities and there had been at least 5 previous accidents there) was legally an occupation road but it had effectively become a public road.  The crossing later became the first CCTV crossing supervised by Kings Dyke box, where the A605 crossing also had more than its fair share of crossing incidents (replaced a couple of years ago by a bridge)

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=1010

 

 

This is one of the cock-eyed approaches to crossings which now seems to afflict the railway industry as they are all called 'level crossings' whereas legally accommodation and occupation crossing are not level crossings because there is no Level C rossing Order applying to them.  This sort of sloppy approach has tended to hide the legal differences between various classes of crossing where a road or track or footpath crosses the railway on the level and they all seem to be regarded as the same irrespective of the varying legal positions and levels of  potential risk.

 

Hence my search of RSSB (I'm a registered user so have the necessary access) for standards relating to intervisibility as accommodation and occupation crossings drew a complete blank  as did any search using those terms. 

[TheQ]

Emancipation of Scottish miners didn't occur until 1799, Northumberland miners were still tied to their mines on an annual basis until 1872..

[Michael Hodgson]

8 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

Hence my search of RSSB (I'm a registered user so have the necessary access) for standards relating to intervisibility as accommodation and occupation crossings drew a complete blank  as did any search using those terms. 

Some other generic term combining both types such as Private crossings?  Rights of way?  Access rights?

Would certainly be easier if they stuck with the terminology that the industry is used to.

 

I can understand them describing a crossing as User-worked if the user has to do something - press a button, phone for permission or open a gate, but it seems a bit much to describe a bridlepath or a rural footpath using a stile as user worked!

 

It seem to me that visbility matters unless there is some positive interaction with the railway to indicate when it's safe to cross.  The general public think there is always safety in the form of gates being interlocked with signals - that's why we have had so many problems with AHBs and AOCs

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, SM42 said:

 

If they aren't that mobile, should they be using the foot crossing?

If the elderly and infirm are made to use some more distant and inconvenient crossing, that's disability discrimination.

Why should people who have used a long-established right of way over a foot crossing suddenly have to walk 500 yards out of their way and 500 yards back again on the other side?

[SM42]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

If the elderly and infirm are made to use some more distant and inconvenient crossing, that's disability discrimination.

Why should people who have used a long-established right of way over a foot crossing suddenly have to walk 500 yards out of their way and 500 yards back again on the other side?

 

Don't know where the 1000 yds came from. 

 

Nowhere was it mentioned to walk a distance to cross to then walk back to a point directly on the opposite side of the line. 

 

A slightly longer, safer route to get to the same destination is IMO better.

 

In one instance I gave earlier  it was approximately 200 yds along the road to junction with the main  road , turn left and  another 200 - 300yds or so along the main  road, crossing the railway on the road bridge to end up at the same point, had you used the old path through the field  over the railway  and across another field, crossing two stiles in the process. 

 

Most other diversions have exactly the same effect. 

 

In another of my examples,

 

Bear right or left, depending on which side you approach from and cross using the road bridge or bear left / right and use the adjacent foot crossing ( now closed but still people force their way through)

 

The only inconvenience is its uphill to get over the bridge and you may have to double back a bit depending on where you are going once across the railway. 

 

Where no alternative is close by, a bridge is usually built or sometimes the path stopped up completely via the legal process. 

 

If there is a safer alternative close by diversions are thd norm, again through due legal process. 

 

I don't see how reducing the risk of being hit by a train is discriminatory. 

 

 

Andy

[DenysW]

3 hours ago, SM42 said:

Should the railway be consulted by planning authorities?

I'd be very surprised if they weren't statutory consultees. I'd be equally surprised if the planning application was clear enough that the eventual visibility consequences would have been  apparent.

[corneliuslundie]

Do trees need planning permission to grow? If they do it will keep the planning offices busy.

J

[Hobby]

No, but the Highways Act 1980 makes the landowners responsible for keeping vegetation from blocking a road sign or blocking a clear view of the road ahead. I'd get surprised if the railways didn't have similar.

Edited August 10 by Hobby

[Wickham Green too]

47 minutes ago, Hobby said:

No, but the Highways Act 1980 makes the landowners responsible for keeping vegetation from blocking a road sign ...

I wonder who's supposed to enforce that when the Highways Authority are the landowner ..... I passed some well obscured signs today.

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

Do trees need planning permission to grow

Change-of-use triggers the need for planning permission, such as a railway station or a pub into a house. I wasn't deep into this to know whether/when a change from actively farmed to woodland counts.

[Compound2632]

I couldn't find it just now but one of the Railway Acts gave the companies powers to enter land adjoining the railway to remove trees that were a hazard to the operation of the railway. (Not, that I could see, the Consolidated Clauses Act, 1845.) Presumably that legislation has been superceded but some similar powers surely exist?

Edited August 10 by Compound2632

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

I wonder who's supposed to enforce that when the Highways Authority are the landowner ..... I passed some well obscured signs today.

 

Your local authority has responsibility for it, though I suspect most people like to moan but don't actually do something about it by reporting it!

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

Change-of-use triggers the need for planning permission, such as a railway station or a pub into a house. I wasn't deep into this to know whether/when a change from actively farmed to woodland counts.

 

I think you will find that trees are a crop, just as wheat or spuds are.  No change of use.

[Wickham Green too]

Those people who actually NEED road signs are those who are not familiar with the area, wouldn't know what local authority to report it to and are unlikely to bother once they get home ..... let alone, round here - know whether the Council or TfL are responsible for that stretch of tarmac.

 

 

Edited August 10 by Wickham Green too

[The Stationmaster]

On 09/08/2024 at 15:42, RJS1977 said:

On the subject of "spoiling the view", but relating it to level crossings:

 

I know of a heritage railway which has a farm track that crosses the railway line (user worked crossing) at 45 degrees before cutting off the corner of an adjacent field and terminating at a farmhouse.

 

A few years ago (pre pandemic), the farmer got some funding to plant part of his farmland with trees, so he planted out the corner of the field between the farm track and the railway with trees.

 

Now train crew can't see him (or delivery drivers going to/from the house) approaching the crossing, and they can't see the trains....

This is an awkward area.  regrettably RSSB in their infinite wisdom have removed the original classification of such crossings and now simply refer to them as 'user worked' (UWC) and the most recent standard goes on about 'phones.    One possibly useful reference is this one from RAIB -

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summary-of-learning-1-design-and-operation-of-user-worked-level-crossings/summary-of-learning-1-design-and-operation-of-user-worked-level-crossings

 

This might also be helpful (I think it can be accessed without an RSSB log-in but someone on the Railway should have an RSSB log-in in any case) -

 

https://www.rssb.co.uk/safety-and-health/level-crossings

 

This is guidance for crossing users -

 

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/user_worked_railway_level_crossings.pdf

 

Additionally RIS-0793-CCS, currently in draft form and available from RSSB might contain something relevant but it certainly doesn't stand out froma reading of the contents page.

 

So what I can't find is anything fully definitive in respect of intervisibility standards for what are now classed as UWCs  Providing 'phones - apart from the cost - would be slightly daft on Railways such as the C&WR or Chinnor which don't run everyday or even every weekend.  Such is the nature of such railways' operations that crossing users would quickly get used to totally ignoring any 'phones which are provided because calls can only rarely be answered.

 

So  - having made sure that there is proper reference to this crossing in the Railway's Rule Book etc and having, before that, carried out an intervisibility check and risk assessment at the crossing and taken them into account in the operating Rules - I would suggest that the Railway concerned calls in a member of the Railway Inspectorate to seek their ruling in respect of this crossing.     Such ruling might be to the railway's potential disadvantage but if there is any sort of identified potential risk associated with this crossing the Railway has a legal obligation to deal with it.

Edited August 11 by The Stationmaster

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I couldn't find it just now but one of the Railway Acts gave the companies powers to enter land adjoining the railway to remove trees that were a hazard to the operation of the railway. (Not, that I could see, the Consolidated Clauses Act, 1845.) Presumably that legislation has been superceded but some similar powers surely exist?

That is correct (I read it this aftenoon as it happens) but - without checking - I'm reasonably sure that the powers were removed under a later Act.  And if they did still exist it would probably depend on the wording of the LRO for the railway concerned as LROs don't necessarily transfer full legal powers of older legislation.

[Hobby]

11 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Those people who actually NEED road signs are those who are not familiar with the area, wouldn't know what local authority to report it to and are unlikely to bother once they get home ..... let alone, round here - know whether the Council or TfL are responsible for that stretch of tarmac.

 

That's fair comment for visitors, but what's wrong with the locals reporting it, help your fellow motorist and all that, but I know, it's all about Me these days, why would they bother to help anyone else!

[KingEdwardII]

13 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

when the Highways Authority are the landowner

That is rarer than you might imagine. The general case is that the verge belongs to the adjoining land owner - and they are responsible for it - trees included.

 

In our village, the verges commonly contain ditches for drainage. The landowner is responsible for maintaining the drainage in these ditches - the only bits belonging to the highway authority are the culverted sections under roads at junctions or under pavements. So I have the joy of maintaining the ditch in front of my house, including the piped section under my drive...

 

Yours, Mike.

[Wickham Green too]

The verges in most of my village chunk of outer suburbia are mown and tree-planted by the council so I presume they consider themselves to be the owners - my turning, on the other hand, is 'unadopted' so the verge and half the road are technically my property ........... though I don't normally charge tolls for its use.

[martin_wynne]

20 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

The verges in most of my village chunk of outer suburbia are mown and tree-planted by the council so I presume they consider themselves to be the owners - my turning, on the other hand, is 'unadopted' so the verge and half the road are technically my property ........... though I don't normally charge tolls for its use.

 

Owning the land under it, being responsible for maintaining it, and having a legal right to use it, are 3 different things.

 

Generally the King's Highway extends across the full width of the area between the property boundaries, including verges and footpaths. Anyone can wander freely on foot across the entire width.

 

Here is a diagram:

 

 

Linked from: https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/article/39753/Highway-boundaries

 

 

[martin_wynne]

Should both residents in the above diagram have garden railways, it would be legal to dig a tunnel under the road to link them. 🙂

 

Ownership of the tunnel would change at the middle of the road.

 

 

[PhilJ W]

6 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Should both residents in the above diagram have garden railways, it would be legal to dig a tunnel under the road to link them. 🙂

Ownership of the tunnel would change at the middle of the road.

But what happens if a train breaks down or derails in the tunnel? Do you dig up the road to recover it?

[martin_wynne]

14 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

But what happens if a train breaks down or derails in the tunnel? Do you dig up the road to recover it?

 

 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07JVZZDKF