Another level crossing crash - 18 injured

[Dave]

What I want to know is - Why is it so expensive to convert half barrier crossings to full? There's no need for them to be collision proof or anything, all we need is something to stop cars weaving around the barriers. Either build a cheap gate system on the other side of the road and hook it into the original wiring, or make some sort of fibreglass attachment that bolts onto the end of existing half barrier gates.

Serious question here.

They need the falling mesh bits to stop pedestrians ducking undedr. One of these can't just be replicated as they're a bit complicated.

[61653]

Also the problem of trapping people/vehicles between the barriers: Full-barrier crossings are supervised more closely, with additional cost, to prevent this.

[beeb375]

What I want to know is - Why is it so expensive to convert half barrier crossings to full? There's no need for them to be collision proof or anything, all we need is something to stop cars weaving around the barriers. Either build a cheap gate system on the other side of the road and hook it into the original wiring, or make some sort of fibreglass attachment that bolts onto the end of existing half barrier gates.

Serious question here.

They need the falling mesh bits to stop pedestrians ducking undedr. One of these can't just be replicated as they're a bit complicated.

Well as it is they can just walk around the barriers, so surely anything's an improvement whether or not it has the mesh?

The supervision point does make sense though I guess, wiring up cameras to monitor them and employing more staff to control them would indeed be a bit pricey.

[Kevo00]

Why don't we go back to old fashioned gates which closed right across the road, which would cover the whole road, with the present flashing lights, but with full automation and mechanisation of the gates? Job done.

[beeb375]

Because one day the system would inevitably fail and a train would plough into a pair of gates at 125?

[Kevo00]

Not if it was interlocked, perhaps using track circuits, so that if the gates don't close the signals are turned to red.

[Dave]

Not if it was interlocked, perhaps using track circuits, so that if the gates don't close the signals are turned to red.

Which is already mostly the case, except the signaller has to monitor the crossing and when noting it is clear he clears the signals. A signal across a raised crossing will always be red regardless of whether or not the line is clear.

[JamieLei]

Not if it was interlocked, perhaps using track circuits, so that if the gates don't close the signals are turned to red.

Which is already mostly the case, except the signaller has to monitor the crossing and when noting it is clear he clears the signals. A signal across a raised crossing will always be red regardless of whether or not the line is clear.

Is this a variation of Moorgate controll?

[Dave]

No, the signals and level crossing are interlocked. You can't set a signal if the crossing is open, the same as signals and points are interlocked. You can't set a signal through a set of points unless the points are clear for your route.

Moorgate control has the ability to stop the train in the event it is travelling too quickly to stop, whereas a train approaching an interlocked crossing would be stopped through the usual sequence of signals.

Of course, the Wales incident last year clearly shows such a system is not failsafe - most UK signals will default to stop in the case of failure, but a mechanism in the crossing must have failed, causing the equipment (and thus the signal) to report the line was clear.

[Kevo00]

Thing is, I think the equipment failure rate of automated gates, combined with interlocking failure, would still be far lower than the failure of drivers to stop at half barrier or un-gated level crossings.

[Dave]

Oh for definite; and if the crossing fails, or interlocking fails, it can be dealt with by the usual procedures.

[potts]

Just saw this too - looks like the tanker drive might be fine? Presumably his cab was past the crossing, and the back was full of sewage; hence he just got spun around, but for the train it was like hitting a wall. Hope everyone recovers: those cabs aren't particularly well protected - class 156?

MUs Don't have crumple zones. That sprinter must have been wrecked.

PS: Please could you put up pictures of the crash?

[JamieLei]

I highly doubt it - when 15xs get into accidents, they tend to come off pretty lightly. They're a pretty sturdy example of British Engineering and Industry.

Edit: Found a pic - mild damage to the front of the train, but the structural integrity of the train looks fine. I'd be surprised if the train was written off, but it'll be in Crewe for a while while it's repaired.



A second pic: no damage past the cab



Passengers wouldn't have been involved in the wreckage.

[Dave]

That's still pretty intense damage though.

They've got a 156 vehicle from the incident up in Scotland. Chances are they could put into a hybrid unit.

Only problem, as sod's law has to dictate, is both cars that came out unscathed are the one's without the bog. Standard form.

[JamieLei]

That's still pretty intense damage though.

They've got a 156 vehicle from the incident up in Scotland. Chances are they could put into a hybrid unit.

Only problem, as sod's law has to dictate, is both cars that came out unscathed are the one's without the bog. Standard form.

Lol! How difficult is it to retrofit a bog? I know that the new Thameslink order mandate specifically requires bogs to be able to be removed easily and replaced with seating, although I'm sure CrossCountry would have done so long ago if that was the case...

[Ameecher]

That's still pretty intense damage though.

They've got a 156 vehicle from the incident up in Scotland. Chances are they could put into a hybrid unit.

Only problem, as sod's law has to dictate, is both cars that came out unscathed are the one's without the bog. Standard form.

Lol! How difficult is it to retrofit a bog? I know that the new Thameslink order mandate specifically requires bogs to be able to be removed easily and replaced with seating, although I'm sure CrossCountry would have done so long ago if that was the case...

Pointless waste of effort to retrofit a bog when the units are temporarily made into a hybrid (even if they are going to be). If it wasn't for the fact that NXEA are so short of units I would have put money on them pairing the unscathed half with a 153. More likely would be as Dave says, making a hybrid.

[Dave]

That's still pretty intense damage though.

They've got a 156 vehicle from the incident up in Scotland. Chances are they could put into a hybrid unit.

Only problem, as sod's law has to dictate, is both cars that came out unscathed are the one's without the bog. Standard form.

Lol! How difficult is it to retrofit a bog? I know that the new Thameslink order mandate specifically requires bogs to be able to be removed easily and replaced with seating, although I'm sure CrossCountry would have done so long ago if that was the case...

Pointless waste of effort to retrofit a bog when the units are temporarily made into a hybrid (even if they are going to be). If it wasn't for the fact that NXEA are so short of units I would have put money on them pairing the unscathed half with a 153. More likely would be as Dave says, making a hybrid.

Potential for them to retrofit a bog if the two damaged vehicles are scrap.

[Ameecher]

Potential for them to retrofit a bog if the two damaged vehicles are scrap.

In times such as now when units are in such short supply I doubt that will happen. The 158 that hit that bridge in Leicestershire a couple of years back was equally if not more so mangled than this and was out of traffic for a long time but did return to traffic.

[orudge]

Lol! How difficult is it to retrofit a bog? I know that the new Thameslink order mandate specifically requires bogs to be able to be removed easily and replaced with seating

What if you need the toilet? Although, I know nothing about Thameslink, but I assume they're relatively short journeys so you could probably get by without.

[Dave]

Probably because they'll be part of a modularised carriage so they could have 4 or 5 carriages and only one or two toilets. Probably.