|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 6, 2024 19:27:35 GMT
As I recall there are quite a few “walkway” crossings of railways in Cambridge area - perhaps because of the generally flat land. If we are going to look at this seriously, the “cross at your own risk” sign may be adequate warning for adults but perhaps less so for kids. The answer here then is a risk assessment - is there a materially increased risk from Zany’s quieter trains, what are sight lines like - plainly a long straight track is likely to be safer than a crossing just after a bend, what speed do trains on this track do. Once risk is assessed balance that against benefit - if say there is a bridge 100 yards up the line then there would be less need than if there was no alternative crossing and what is on each side of the track. As always with H&S, it is bloody obvious that the crossing in use without incident by the local community for fifty years should be left in place until of course the tragic incident when two kids are mown down by an express at which point it is bloody obvious it should have been closed years ago. It should be reasonably cheap to put in some sort of audible warning of a train approaching, that would be a good compromise. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2024 7:43:49 GMT
One simple operating change that could be made if trains are too quiet. Mandate that the driver continues to sound the horn in the approach to such a crossing and until the train has passed. It might not be heard by deaf people or those wearing headphones but it would by most. Mandating a reduction in speed on the approach to such crossings might also help where the usual speed is very high
Not absolute solutions obviously but something practical which can be put in place quickly and cheaply.
The problem with fines is that they rarely deter people and only punish them after the fact, and only then if the authorities think it worth the cost of prosecuting them. Already many crimes like shoplifting are barely prosecuted for lack of resources. So fines or the threat of them will have a very limited impact. And building bridges at all such places would be vastly expensive.
Is the crossing being described an exceptionally dangerous one compared to others or is it typical of all of them? If the former we need to identify the reasons why and address them. If the latter it is a wonder that so few people ever get killed at such crossings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2024 7:47:58 GMT
As I recall there are quite a few “walkway” crossings of railways in Cambridge area - perhaps because of the generally flat land. If we are going to look at this seriously, the “cross at your own risk” sign may be adequate warning for adults but perhaps less so for kids. The answer here then is a risk assessment - is there a materially increased risk from Zany’s quieter trains, what are sight lines like - plainly a long straight track is likely to be safer than a crossing just after a bend, what speed do trains on this track do. Once risk is assessed balance that against benefit - if say there is a bridge 100 yards up the line then there would be less need than if there was no alternative crossing and what is on each side of the track. As always with H&S, it is bloody obvious that the crossing in use without incident by the local community for fifty years should be left in place until of course the tragic incident when two kids are mown down by an express at which point it is bloody obvious it should have been closed years ago. It should be reasonably cheap to put in some sort of audible warning of a train approaching, that would be a good compromise. I agree and suggested something similar before I read this. But your solution is a better idea than mine. Having an audible alarm at the actual crossing point rather than the horn of an approaching train makes much more sense. Though as added safety have the train sound an alert too as back up just in case of crossing point alarm failure. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 19, 2024 8:15:49 GMT
It should be reasonably cheap to put in some sort of audible warning of a train approaching, that would be a good compromise. I agree and suggested something similar before I read this. But your solution is a better idea than mine. Having an audible alarm at the actual crossing point rather than the horn of an approaching train makes much more sense. Though as added safety have the train sound an alert too as back up just in case of crossing point alarm failure. Almost all these systems have backups anyway. Our modern fire alarms self test constantly and sound an alarm if a smoke head, sounder etc does not respond to its trigger. |
|
