Level Crossing Upgrade | Waste of Money? Already Broken
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- Warning: This video contains discussion on railway safety, fatalities and suicide that some viewers may find upsetting.
This level crossing had an upgrade, but was it necessary and is it any good? Be safe when crossing the railway kids: www.networkrai...
With it being quite close to housing, I'd imagine it's been vandalised due to the constant noise of the crossing alarms going off, at ungodly hours of the night.
They won't be. Rail crossing audible alarms situated near residential premises are silenced during what are deemed unsocial hours - defined in the legal act which establishes the automatic crossing.
@@gingertom2355 A friend of ours lives near a fairly minor road crossing where a pedestrian phase was added. Although the audible signal was off at night, sounding for 20seconds every few minutes all day, it drove him crazy, particularly when working from home on the phone. Since covid and dozens of complaints, the audible signal has been removed.
Surely the train would be louder when going past rather than the quiet alarm? And trains are scheduled to stop around midnight. If there isn't freight that is.
@@therealmasonicbwe Maintenance trains checking tracks, adding grease and removing wet leaves run overnight in the UK, but they run at about 10mph
Due to their weight, freight trains very rarely share tracks with passenger trains and never in the cities.
@@wilsjaneI see
Honestly don't understand the mentality of why Someone would see a need to vandalise lights at a crossing....
I've just been talking to the team that are fixing them. Apparently, damaging them is quite the offence, like removing a barrier from a level crossing. They're installing anti-vandal cages now. My estimated cost both for this and a bridge were low.
This nonsense adds to the cost of rail maintenance, which in turn puts fairs up. If the level of non-suicide fatalities is as presented here then the money should be spent elsewhere. If a normal human can’t cross here without getting killed then natural selection is clearly working. Installing expensive and pointless lights doesn’t fix stupid!
Because there are shitty people out there without respect for anything.
maybe because they were being blinded?
@@doltBmB That's like it being okay to kill someone just because he annoys you. 🙄
To imagine that the installation of these came at a cost of 6 figures is hard to stomach, I live nearby to this and definitely agree that a footbridge would've been a much better idea if they really wanted to do something.
Apparently, both my estimates were on the low side. A bridge would be millions and this is most likely well inside 6 figures.
Safety is ok as long as it isn’t excessive.
@@laurenceskinnerton73 Its not excessive. As he stated earlier there is poor vision on the tracks because of a curve so these lights should save people from walking at the wrong time.
I prefer level crossings as they add more time to a car journey
@@OscarOSullivan This is a foot level crossing not a road level crossing.
I can not speak for network rail but have experience in this department.
Network rail will have risk assessed this and deemed it would benefit from this vamos, system. This is a cheep(ish) solution to reducing risk.
Yes the lights are bright but there is no way currently of dimming them unfortunately.
Vandalism can be made harder with cage around the lights. This will probably be implemented.
Lights and sirens will reduce the risk to members of public. Fact.
The system will go "BLACK" OR DARK if it detects a fault. I'm pretty sure the signs will then say cross how you used to, stop look listen. There for network rail are not taking any more risk than what the original crossing was, only adding an extra safety layer.
Trust me a foot bridge is way more expensive.
If there is evidence of miss use and some kid is killed the media would have a field day if they knew network rail knew and did nothing.
Trust me there will have been lots of meetings, risk assessments and discussions about thr crossing and the solution they have decided is best for cost and safety.
Edit: Forgot to say, thanks for sharing your knowledge 🙂
They're installing cages today. Spoke to one of the team, and they made a good point. They said that even young children understand red and green lights, so this makes it safer for them.
They also confirmed that a bridge could be 10x the cost.
The lights installed are called VAMoS units and I think are approx £60k for materials and install. These are NOT interlocked with signalling and there will not show a red signal to trains should they fail. Replacing with bridges, which is considerably safer, with fully disabled compliant will cost £1.5m+ depending on location.
The issue with these rural railway foot crossings is that busybodies with nothing better to do get on to their local MPs and other politicians and lay the risk problem onto them. They, in turn, lay the risk problem back onto the railway authority. To cover itself, the railway people install more controls.
On the other hand, what if a person needs to cross but is visually limited and maybe hearing is not so good, then the lights make sense, apart from them being too bright when people are close up.
People need to cross roads all day, so why are railway crossings any different, except on high speed lines.?
Uncontrolled crossings are extremely rare on lines operating over 50mph.
Same 'upgrade ' occurred at our local bridleway crossing. Been OK for 150 years previously... lights promptly broke down leading to closure of the crossing for 9 months while nothing was done. People moved the plastic barrier and continued to cross, so Network Rail paid a 'traffic management' company to build a huge steel fence across the route instead of fixing the lights. People diverted along the trackside and crossed further down. Eventually, after a local campaign, someone came and fixed in in a couple of hours one day. broke down a week later, so they put a bin liner over the lights and called it done.
I used to live near the West Coast Main Line, and had to cross it twice a day on a rural foot crossing to go to work. It also had small red and green lights. At night, those lights were the only illumination for probably half a mile in any direction, and you were under the trees as well. There aren't many better cures for constipation than being half-way across and suddenly losing almost all your vision as the green light goes out.
Network Rail visited, during the day, and said it was fine.
These signals are really cute and great. Even if they save one life over their entire course of existing it's still worth it.
This is something I nearly rambled about in the video, but decided it was going off topic and I'm not well informed. The NHS do actually put a value on life. Should Network Rail? What would it be?
@@LittleWicketRailway2 The DfT place a value on life when assessing the safety benefits v the estimated cost of taking mitigating action which will usually include a list of options available. The balance is always the greatest safety benefit for the lowest cost. If the estimated cost of the most expensive options only provide a marginal increase in safety benefit DfT and NR will conclude the extra spend is not warranted and be put to better use elsewhere - or nowhere as is the current case.
Good video with valid points. I currently work for Network Rail doing S&T but crossing do fall under my area of knowledge and I have a couple of thoughts. Firstly, you're right that a footbridge/ underpass would be superior to the upgrade but these would need full planning permission from your local council and would have cost a fortune, I've seen some seemingly simple projects cost eye watering amounts and would argue that your cost prediction might be generous. However, I agree with your ideas about ramps and dimmer lights at night, this has been done before so I'm not sure why this hasn't been implemented here although the state of the field before the crossing may be an indicator of why they haven't bothered this time.
Britain _really_ doesn't consider disabled people. Like at all. I can't even count the number of local public businesses in my area, including *dentists* and *surgeries* that have basically no wheelchair access whatsoever.
Also because of the crossing being up on a levy they could possibly also build a pedestrian underpass that’s fully accessible with short ramps on each side which could be built for the mid six figure range at minimum. It’s just train services on the line may be interrupted one night as they build it if they can dig it and install a pre fabricated concrete underpass structure in only a few hours! :)
While that would be the functionally best solution, the cost would be prohibitive and arguably better spent on mental health programs to reduce the main risk of fatality on railways.
@@hks-lion
Yup or it would probably eventually happen if the local population increased by a lot surrounding that crossing over the next few years and as a result also required for more services to be run on that line to keep up with the demand.
Should you visit the USA , they have thousands of rural crossings , with no gates or fences or warning lights , just look both ways and walk or drive over ! ! FYI , high speed trains usually cause the rails to " sing " giving ample time to get away , and US freight trains have VERY LOUD horns that you can hear from miles away ! ............... DAVE™🛑
The real reason is the closure. I'll bet the "temporary" closure has been there a few weeks while they figure out how to deal with the vandalism. It'll turn into a permanent closure next chance they get
I’d prefer a ramp to a footbridge - footbridge totally inaccessible to wheelchairs but also buggies etc.
Sadly that is one of the hotspots for suicide in the area... I worked with one guy whos family member committed suicide on that crossing not so long ago...
also having lived in the area for most of my life it does not surprise me on the stupidity of people crossing it and letting their kids just play on the tracks.
I was a bit shocked when I reginised the hills and that exact crossing 😮
Network Rail seem incapable of installing a footbridge for less than about £3M. Hence why the business case for these stacks up!
There's a handful of foot crossing on a branch line ( within couple of feet from each other ) in my home town and not to long ago a school girl was walking home from school with her friends and she got hit by a train and on scene and apparently she was listening to music and didn't stop, look and listen ( despite her friends screaming and yelling ) so the crossing she died on ( or near ) was upgraded
In the ideal world a bridge but who pays?. But equally it’s sometimes best to have some risk in life along side education and awareness to z risk. If we remove every preserved risk, life would be boring but more importantly we would gradually loose are skill / ability to self manage risk and judgement… if people want to commit suicid they will find a way sadly. Also are society seems to be falling apart with all the so called tech and safety regs and in some ways not nessarally safer or better. Im a big believer in common sense and education in the facts and parents taking responsibility of their children and pet owners and so on and people having some self responsibility and awareness about them. Or maybe im old school.
These crossings are called Miniture Warning Light crossings ( MWL for short) They are made by a company called something like shwizer and they are popping up all around the uk at the moment
An electronic gate system would be better, once a train has gone over the track circuits, the gates won't open ...if its made high enough then it would also stop people from jumping over it
And if a train happens to initiate the warning sequence when someone is half way across?
Just what I always wanted! 😃👍 Making it all too obvious, warning pedestrians that a train is coming! ;) Unfortunately vandals HAD to be lunatics HAD to ruin them! 😤
This seems like a classic example of not starting with one simple question "Why?" most management/business decisions first some come down to this. 'Why' are we doing this and how will this improve the system in the future. instead, it seems they looked at what in reality is a safe crossing, with a 97% chance the majority of the time of not being hit by a train. Added in these improvement costs, maintain coss to solve a while deadline, in the grand schemes relatively small problem.
Great video - I agree, a footbridge should have been installed instead - and it's a shame about the stupid vandalism. I didn't know those NR clips were recorded there - shocked that this sort of thing happens (relatively) locally to me. And you have a cool dog! 😁
Apparently, bridges are a bit more expensive than I thought, but I think it's worth it in the long run. Young school kids use the crossing every day. Anti vandal cages went on today. Thanks, Dolly is pretty cool 😎 🐕
@@LittleWicketRailway2 I think a tunnel would be more logical concidering the height of the railway.
@@Mgameing123 that would cost even more money and would take longer to do and the ground may not be suitable for a tunnel
@@daliverpoolfan69 True but its more convient compared to walking all the way up onto a footbridge.
@@Mgameing123 I agree with you and a tunnel would be amazing but realistically there is a lot to take into account. I like your idea a lot but I'm not sure it would be practible in that area
The sirens will alert someone loitering on the tracks and who can't see the lights that there is a train approaching. Provided he's not deaf.
That looks like it might be the Malvern Hills on the skyline, and fairly close
You know your hills 👍
They should have a electrically locking gate which detects trains the same way as those lights so you cant entre the crossing when a train is comming
They should have just built a footbridge like you suggested, it wouldn't cost much more than this!
Apparently my estimates were low. A bridge in that location would be millions.
It would cost much more
What about an underpass, since the railway is already above footpath level ??????????
@@pjeaton58Yeah, that would make more sense, but only when the railway was built, so the railway can be a small bridge over a footpath. Now, a footbridge is probably a lot cheaper
should have left it alone. How stupid do you have to be to cross in front of a train anyway??
A lot of good points, I think one of the other aims of these systems is to make them more suitable for those with certain disabilities (I.e the auditable alarm for those with impaired vision) also it removes a degree of liability to network rail for misuse.
I agree a footbridge is safer but sadly that has a lot of complexities which involve others whereas the crossing network rail can modify without much interference. So a bridge for example requires council approval which may also necessitate a public consultation and if going on private land, the landowner would have to agree or need to be compensated. Councils can be a pain in the backside - for example demanding a bridge which is fully accessible which can also involve new footpaths which are equally accessible - and sometimes it’s this level of involvement by other parties which make it less appealing.
An underpass in theory has less bureaucratic red tape in theory but it’s quite a big task and things like drainage (seeing the water on that field) become factors.
But this said I do agree with the points you make
A bridge presents a problem for the elderly and people with minor disability. It also needs to be kept free of snow and ice in winter.
The more you add, the more their is to maintain and go wrong.
I think that the crossing in the video is a fair compromise, but the over bright light signals need to be adjusted. Modern LED's save money on energy and replacement, but they are very dazzling when viewed straight on. Tilting them upwards may be the answer.
@@wilsjane This is true - the solution is what they have done - might need some fine tuning but more intensive works carry greater issues.
@@AnthonyFurnival Sometimes our nanny state goes too far and creates two problems for every one it solves.
People with both impaired sight and vision are not safe crossing the road, long before they get to the railway.
Parents are also responsible for teaching their children about the dangers in everyday life, not leaving it to someone else.
@@wilsjane sadly as you say the legislation puts the onus on the companies like network rail to deal with perceived issues - as such we see lots of unnecessary projects because failure to implement them in the ‘sue anyone’ culture we have is seen as a huge risk
Any new footbridge would have to be disabled friendly, very long ramps either side
Jeez, those lenses look bad. Hopefully they can fix it soon
If you think about it, even though footbridges and tunnels cost a lot more, they probably are more worth the money in the long term since they require a lot less maintenance, they're a lot safer and there's less that could go wrong.
Yes the lights will make the crossing slightly safer, but if people are in a hurry is everyone really going to stop for 50 seconds at the lights when it just takes 5 seconds to cross? (especially when they're trying to get to the pub before it closes!)
The light warn you that a train is due, but you still have eyes and ears to take off your phone when you need to.
I think this is a NR being seen to be " doing something ". I would suggest putting LED strips into the footway shining up , this could be well set into the ground to avoid vandelism. Alternatively as the railway is on an embankment , subject to drainage , could a foot tunnel be provided ?
Tunnels are hugely expensive. They need to be constructed of steel reinforced concrete, then need foundations to support the weight. Railway tracks do not have deep foundations, so where they pass over the tunnel, their are additional problems.
This is why you rarely see them on suburban railway crossings.
Wouldn't an underground passing/tunnel do the trick? I live in Norway and that is the most usual thing to build. Can't be that much more in cost, can it?
Yes, that would be very expensive, eve more than a bridge.
It would be prohibitively expensive, the line would need to be shut for them to reinforce the terrain underneath the tracks before installing it. Nevermind the criminals that smashed the lights in probably would spray paint the tunnel walls until they turned black
I know two options that are way safer than this level crossing which that might be more expensive. Either one you build a bridge or two a tunnel.
It looks for me like the line is on an embankment there - why not build a pedestrian underpass ?
The cost. Digging an underpass beneath a line requires all sorts of stabilisation work, geological and structural surveys etc.
@@tjfSIM
An overpass needs a lot more of technical support
Basically near me just my crossing is only a wooden style and there’s trains every 5-10 mins
You cant fix stupid and frankly I could care less. So, couple of sleepers between the rails and a tin warning sign, job done, the way it was near me when I was a kid and no more people died back then than they do today.
If there been only the red light with a beeper which will only turn on when the train is approaching , it would fix the blinding issue.
The green light is there to show the crossing system is "working" otherwise people would see no red light and assume it was safe.
@@K-o-R
To be fair you could do that without a big green light.
Not to mention, that green light being on doesnt mean you can cross without a care in the world. You still need to look and listen because the crossing could malfunction despite the green light being on. The green light provides a false sense of security and thus makes the crossing less safe than it would be if it wasnt there.
@@EdwardDragon96: "You still need to look and listen because the crossing could malfunction despite the green light being on." Well, I would very much like to think that the possibility of those lights not failing safe would be low enough to not need to worry about it - after all, these lights are often used in places where there literally isn't the visibility to make a safe decision to cross the line or not. Similarly to how you don't (and shouldn't, and very frequently can't) look for trains on road crossings.
@@fetchstixRHD
The chance is low, but never 0.
I dont know much about british law (I dont live there) but its a given that you always approach and cross a levelcrossing with care pretty much everywhere in the world. If you cant really see the tracks you go slow. Even in a car. Thats atleast what I got told in drivingschool.
I mean you do dont just go, just because the trafficlight is green. You still ?have a little lookand verify that there isnt some guy running the red light.
@@EdwardDragon96: Where do you live, if you don't mind me asking?
At least here, even if the lights didn't activate properly, you still can't make a safe decision to cross (many layouts where you can only see a portion of the line when you're actually on it - and the linespeed doesn't give you enough time to react either).
Very few crossings expect you to actually look for trains (and these are either very low speed - at most 10mile/h for trains - or do have the visibility and mostly are for private property access, where you're supposed to have permission to use them beforehand). Difference between a green traffic light is that it tells you that you can go _if clear_ (of other road traffic), whereas level crossing lights are effectively stating there are no trains you should worry about when they're not activated
Sadly Network Rail are damned here, everybody wants to find fault in anything that is done, everyone has a camera and is therefore an expert; the words ‘local Facebook group’ never fills me with joy. A quirk of the Victorian age was the power the rail companies were given in law to punish those that were opposed to it, ( believe you can still be sentenced to life for some acts against the railways.) so would not be surprised if crossings like this one are slowly closed for safety reasons in the future. Cost v reward being the argument. Doing anything on the railway costs far more than if we’re a road. Simple footbridge costs several million to build with ongoing costs, if you can get it past the local parish planning 😉
What a waste of money !!
Then they get smashed !!
You answered some of your own questions. Level crossing safety is THE most significant public safety issue facing Network Rail which is why ORR is pressing Network Rail to make significant improvements to its infrastructure, driven by the statistics. Statistics may be meaningless to some but the duty holders of public safety on the railway would be irresponsible in their role if they adopted a similar view and sat on their hands wouldn't they?
YOU state visibility of approaching trains is constrained in one direction due to curvature of the track - i.e. a known hazard at this location. To achieve a mandated MINIMUM time between someone beginning to cross the line from their place of safety / reaching the opposite side place of safety and a train (travelling at line speed in either direction) arriving at the crossing (27secs minimum) visibility to a user MUST be available. If that can't be achieved because visibility is constrained by physical obstruction, a permanent speed restriction is imposed to all trains travelling in the affected direction to assure the minimum warning time for the user. In certain inclement weather conditions even that cannot be guaranteed - i.e. a known risk of harm. You note the train which passed in your clip sounded its horn prior to arriving at the crossing, triggered by a sign board on the approach requiring the driver to do so. BUT at night time complaints of noise 'pollution' from the general public means routine use of train horns is now banned nationally (unless in emergency) - which is likely too late for some to escape harm anyway. In poor weather (e.g. gales) - sound alone is often an unreliable method and is largely ineffective if the crossing user is otherwise engaged listening to the content of their 'mobile device'.
Evidentially the best method, assuming the public crossing cannot be shut, is to REDUCE the need to for crossing users to rely on seeing the 'headlights of approaching trains' (again, likely to be too late to attempt to cross for some) by replacing train sighting based decision making with automated warning systems such as that provided here (in the trade known as MSL's - Miniature Stop Light crossings) thus simplifying the decision making process to commence crossing by limiting it to obeying a simple red / green signal. Brighter lights aid those with restricted sight and are deliberately positioned at a height so ALL users (short and tall) get an adequate view - i.e. not just your 'average height young adult'.
So the aim IS to achieve a DECREASE in the RISK of harm caused by inadequate provision of a safe system to cross the track via the public footpath - and will have been provided at THIS location based on an industry risk ranking of every individual crossing based on historic incident data and applicable individual physical safety factors. Now NR have made that investment ('low six figures is about right) that becomes the safety benchmark at THIS crossing. If some 'locals' choose to vandalise it, NR can't simply revert to a 'less safe / greater risk of harm arrangement so will have to close the crossing until they are able to institute repairs - no doubt at major inconvenience to the the locals. What could happen if the crossing is subject to further continuous misuse / vandalism is NR will eventually seek a formal application to permanently close / divert the footpath away from the railway on the basis that they, nor any other formal body can no longer assure a safe crossing because of local public misuse, in accordance with their NR's legal duties - precisely to the mitigate the risk of harm to users* AND legal claims for damages.
Of course in a utopian world where zero risk / total safety was the norm, and with a corresponding budget and a political will to match, funding for a fully accessible footbridge for ALL potential users costing multiple times more than the provision of a MSL system would be made available - assuming land to construct it on was able to be purchased AND nearby neighbours and those overlooked by such a structure raised no planning opposition. But that's not reality and like it or not the railway, like many other public organisations is subject to finite budgets which do not meet the demand for expenditure placed on it, and so it takes time and events to push individual calls for change to the top if the rankings. Crossing modernisation is near the top! Getting to the top of the crossing modernisation is also difficult so any funding decision to replace a modern automated crossing with a footbridge would of course sit within the same arena as safety risk management expenditure for ALL other deserving cases around the network yet to receive any funding - i.e. low down. And while the crossing remains shut the risk of harm remains low until cases of trespass increase. NR will then be forced to elevate the option of permanent closure / diversion to enable them to erect permanent fencing to address the trespass.
The OBVIOUS solution is for the local community to treat the crossing as a benefit to them and look after it as part of their neighbourhood - i.e take some responsibility for the actions within their community. But then again digging out the railway authority is easier isn't it?
If YOU want to understand the (sometimes conflicting) issues involved a little more I recommend the following publication for some light bedtime reading of an incident not so long ago and not so many miles from where the crossing eatured exists;
www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-13-2019-fatal-accident-at-tibberton-no-8-footpath-crossing
*users are equally those on the train
If there is housing close to this crossing, I would hope that Network Rail would be given funding by the government to put in a cookie cutter station, that includes a crossing.
why didnt they put an automatic gate
Does the UK have call crossings? Where you push a button/lever and talk to the signalbox and they'll tell you if it's okay to cross or not. Approach crossing, push button, signalbox gives their okay and the barrier swings up OR they'll tell you wait a train is approaching it'll be a 2 minute wait. They're not common but exist
Not as you describe, no. However, some occupation/accommodation crossings (which is what this crossing is, allowing access between privately owned land, as opposed to a public road) are provided with weather-resistant telephones. The crossing user can contact the controlling signaller.
At least they haven't just closed it
Thats horrible that those lights end up getting broken already when its a footpath in the middle of nowhere plus i wouldnt say people would walk here often
What's the name of the crossing anyway?
Build a underground pedestrian tunnel. Fencing in all Surrounding areas.
It must be very complicated for Network Rail to do a detailed risk assessment for every single foot/road crossing. I think in this case the gates locking (even instead of signals) whenever a train is due might have been the best option. I don't know how fast the trains go here exactly (near Great Malvern station?). I'm not convinced this is the most dangerous crossing, more dangerous than crossings right next to stations on fast lines such as Kirknewton or Kingsknowe for example. Often Network rail won't actually close crossings until there have been many accidents at a single crossing over a long period of time. Presumably Network Rail will be monitoring usage at this crossing. Perhaps they could put more cameras here as well to try and fine people for any vandalism/crossing misuse.
Locked gates initiated by a train first approaching risk trapping people who had already commenced crossing on the railway. Of course they only discover they're trapped once they get to their exit gate to find it locked. What do they do then? Panic and return back across the line to the set that were open when they entered the crossing which by the time they get there will also be locked - hence a double danger of crossing the line in front of an approaching train and being trapped on the lineside which is NOT a safe place.
These are real risks which complicate the ability to set up safe system which the public intuitively understand.
@@gingertom2355 The more you add, the more their is to go wrong. I don't need lights and sirens to cross the minor road outside my front door, although their are more than four cars an hour.
@@wilsjane So why is the road network populated with various styles of light controlled road crossings and patterned roa markings? Because while you may consider yourself untouchable others in society may be highly vulnerable and THEIR welfare must be addressed.
Evidence is crystal clear and beyond debate; uncontrolled (i.e. signed / no equipment public surface crossing points across the railway are statistically of the highest risk of harm to members of the public using them. Network Rail would remove them at a stroke if they were allowed or were funded to place bridges or underpasses where they wished, free of objection from planning committees etc. In the real world that aren't / can't - so other forms of risk mitigation HAS to be provided so ALL of the public using them are provided with the means to cross safely.
You state; 'The more you add, the more their is to go wrong'. By implication 'add' = equipment? 'wrong' the temporary inability of the equipment to provide the intended warning features?
i.e. that permanent state which exists before crossing equipment is provided.
So implicitly you're objecting to crossing equipment because on occasions the pre-existing default fault state may occur until the fault is remedied.
Odd logic?
might aswell just install a footbridge tbf
What about an underpass, since the railway is already above footpath level ??????????
This comes down to a mentality of "it's not worth spending the money to build a safe crossing." Which is absurd. ONE human life is worth whatever it costs to build a safe crossing. There should be absolutely no cost too great to save even a SINGLE human life, never mind however many it really would.
Absolute safety, which is what you are arguing for, while a noble thought is in reality unaffordable. While you may feel that in this limited instance various alternative options should have been employed irrespective of cost (say 10x) you must then multiply that figure for the thousands of similar foot crossings across the UK rail network. But what about the fundamental signalling system itself? £Bn's 'could' be spent reducing further the risk of incidents on this alone despite the UK's signalling safety record comparing well with any other system around the world. What about the railway itself, it's 'Victorian' structures etc. All carry a small risk of failure and consequent danger. More £Bn's (ignoring the absence of people with the skills to perform the work in one's lifetime).
Then consider the competition - and the biggest killer of all - roads.........Like I said; noble but a utopian dream.
If it costs 1 million to save a life in location A but you could spend 1 million in location B and you only have 1 million dollars what do you do?
@@catprog Spend it in locations C to Z and potentially achieve a greater safety benefit than in just spending at a single location. The precise the dichotomy those with the responsibility have to juggle each and every day based on the reality of finite budgets.
Of course, that assumes locations A-Z all have an equitable safety record. Again in reality they won't, so those with the worst record rise to the top of the rankings, and those towards the bottom don't get any funding. Now the OP crossing is fitted with a modern warning system guess where it will now sit in the ranking?
@@gingertom2355 "We shouldn't fix this crossing that's demonstrably unsafe and kills people because you don't understand economics."
Go stand in the corner.
@@shingshongshamalama Grow up.
The easiest, quickest and cheapest way to make the crossing safe is to simply close it permanently, which is exactly what happened when the crossing was damaged by local vandals.
Rest assured there are monitoring systems in place which will alert the signaller to any fault on the crossing controls as when it occurs.
If a bridge is to be provided, the question arises as to who will provide the funds but it will not the the railway infrastructure owner, because it has no funds for such luxuries. It is therefore up the local people to look out for these vandals and if they witness damage being done by individuals to report it to the British Transport Police who can and will take robust action to bring these individuals to the attention of the criminal courts, as well as their parents / guardians if under 18 years of age.
You talk about a re-design of the crossing with ramps. These would inevitably be on third party land, to the landowner's permission would need to be sought and that adds to the cost of improving the crossing. A footbridge will cost in excess of £1m, even more if you want ramps on that too.
You say that the warning lights are too bright, but they need to be bright so that they can still be seen when bright sunlight is shining on them. As can be heard on the video, there is also a continuous audible warning heard the whole time that the red light is being displayed.
Closing it would be a nightmare, how would I get to the pub!?!
They're installing anti vandal cages today, which will help.
And you're right. A bridge costs way more than £1m apparently.
Clearly for idiots since the lights also need a big notice next to them to explain how green and red work in terms of go and stop... and of course, it is the idiots that will ignore the instructions and the lights...
That near miss at the end of the video is exactly why they've added more protection.
I understand your argument of accidental fatalities are low, but it sounds as if near misses at this crossing arent, and when you're trying to improve safety, you treat a near miss as the accident could have been.
Yes people can still choose to ignore the light, miss use etc, but Network rail have covered all their responsibility, theyve warned you with visual and audio, and with the gate, you physically have to choose to step onto the tracks.
I agree the lights shouldn't be ao bright, id argue that there should only be a red flashing light for danger.
This crossing jas likely been designed within regulation that states it needs green and red and each light of a specific luminosity.
Its all daft because really you should just be able to trust people to use common sense, but a lot of people seem to lack that
That near miss cannot be stopped or helped unless of course you erect 20ft electric fences with a reinforced prison style gate system. It would never be done.
so this is the crossing of the two girls playing on the tracks and the dad on his phone
They some protection on those lights. And make them less bright for christ sake.
Anti-vandal cages going on today 😀
@@LittleWicketRailway2that's what I'd reckon would happen. So that's good. I predict they'd get ripped off. But hopes that doesnt happen
Sounds like a case of “the wrong kind of lights”.
What makes me so mad that, that dad thought it was okay to let the kids balance on the rail, one of them could've fallen on the bloody third rail and get electrocuted
No 3rd rail there...........
@@stephenallmond67 oh lol, I didnt even noticed, still tho
Just close the crossing permanently, problem solved
But how do I get to the pub!? 🤣🍻
Just health and safety paranoia, utterly useless