Fred Dibnah

Funny that. First Group which includes First Great Western, Transpennine Express, Scotrail, Hull Trains, GB Railfreight, and First North Western just reported profits in excess of 60million quid. The rail side of their operations gave them 34million.

formatting link
Pete

Reply to
mutley
Loading thread data ...

"mutley" wrote

Well Pete, that entire group profit would pay for cameras on less than 60 AHB crossings, half that if you work on the rail profits alone. The impact on rail passenger safety would be negligible (bearing in mind that the last rail passenger fatalities on level crossings before last weekend was in 1986 at Lockington) it would convince First that it was wasting its time being involved with railways, and as it would need to be an ongoing thing it would wipe out any potential for investment in new rolling stock for donkey's years.

And bear in mind that First Group probably only made a profit on its rail division because of subsidies from the government and ............................................... when the next suicidal imbecile decided that he wanted to park his car in front of a train he'd just find an accomodation crossing rather than a camera equipped AHB, or for that matter might just wait until he saw a train coming before driving around the barriers at a CCTV equipped AHB crossing.

What would have been achieved?

John.

Reply to
John Turner

What about Canada, Australia and her other Dominions beyond the sea?

Reply to
MartinS

30 seconds is par for the course on the Toronto-Montreal main line, which runs near my house. We have passenger trains with heavy diesel- electric locos running up to 95 mph, and mile-long freights with 3 locos doing around 70 mph. At the AHB level crossing nearby, a car driven by an elderly man was hit broadside by a freight which carried it through the (low platform) station, scattering waiting passengers.
Reply to
MartinS

The message from "John Turner" contains these words:

But what is the point of CCTV - will someone actually look at every camera just before a train arrives at all crossings?? CCTV is good for "what happened" scenarios, it is less effective at "what is going to happen" scenarios!

In this case, how much time before the HST got to the crossing would be needed to see the car on the crossing and change signals far enough in advance to allow the driver to react and stop?

Reply to
Colin Reeves

The message from snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (kim) contains these words:

Exactly - CCTV is not the answer

Reply to
Colin Reeves

Which is where the idea of a sensor installed at each level crossing comes in - it could sound an audible warning if any obstruction was on the crossing when a train is due and until it passed (ignoring the train itself of course). With an audible notification to the signalman, he wouldn't have to keep looking every few seconds just to be sure no one had parked on the crossing or was try to crossing once barriers were down.

Ian J.

Reply to
Ian J.

Ian J. wrote:-

Just how long do you think it takes to stop a train a train travelling at

100mph and how many seconds would the signalman have left to do anything about it? On this occasion the driver already spotted the obstruction and slammed the brakes full-on to no avail.

(kim)

Reply to
kim

Like all these things, you have to be prepared to extend the warning time.

30 seconds isn't enough. At least two minutes on the high speed lines would be required between the barriers of a level crossing going down, and the train passing. You also need full barriers only, not half barriers, so that once the barriers are down it would require crashing through them to be able to stop on the crossing.

Like has been said elsewhere, it is impossible to stop someone determined to break through, but at least the sensors, and the full barriers, give the railway staff a fighting chance to prevent such disasters.

Ian J.

Reply to
Ian J.

"Ian J." wrote

Get real - the average rail passenger will be exposed to far more risk just travelling to the station than he ever will whilst on a train. Start preaching safety where it's really needed ................... on our roads!

John.

Reply to
John Turner

Ian J. wrote:-

A spokesman for some railway group or other has stated that full width barriers would create as many problems than they solve. At least with half-barriers someone who is trapped can still escape. Likewise, extending the length of warning would encourage even more drivers to try and beat the system than do now.

Anyway, maybe with all the publicity surrounding the crash Hornby or someone will be encouraged to produce a working model of an automatic crossing.

(kim)

Reply to
kim

In news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m05.aol.com, kim blithered:

Complete with stationary vehicle?

Reply to
GbH

The message from mutley contains these words:

The point is - how long before would the signalman look - and for every train?

I was under the impression that most crossings were automatically operated by an approaching train - no signalman looking.

CCTV is good for inquests, not for continuing safety.

Reply to
Colin Reeves

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.