Level crossings Booms go bust
About one-third of Australia’s 8000 or so public level crossings have active warning devices, while the remainder have only passive signs. With several projects underway to fit more level crossings with active devices, Peter Hughes, principal of the Derwent Group, Australia, looks at their benefits, and considers when they are not required.
most effective form of warning at level crossings. Most importantly, active devices can warn road users of an approaching train even when it is not yet visible. For example if the railway is obscured from the line of sight of a road user stopped at the level crossing, then some form of active warning is clearly needed to ensure the road user can cross the level crossing safely. This is a particular concern in Australia where road trains can be more than 50m long and weigh over 130 tonnes. In such situations very long sight distances are necessary to allow a road train to safely pull away from a complete stop, traverse and clear a level crossing before a train arrives. Often such long sight distances are not available at the road traffic holding point and therefore some form of active warning is essential. Where a level crossing has more than one track, a second train approaching the level crossing can be obscured from view by the first train. This can lead to a very dangerous situation where road
T
HERE are a number of situations where active devices - in particular barriers - provide the
users often believe that the rear of the first train indicates that the level crossing is clear, and proceed into the path of the second train. Once again, active warning devices improve safety in these situations by warning road users of the second train. Furthermore barriers clearly show road users that the first train departing does not mean that the level crossing is clear. In Australia, however, many of the level crossings without active warning devices have only one track and are located in open country where there are no obstructions to visibility. Therefore there are a very large number of level crossings where the benefit gained from active warning devices is limited. A well-managed programme of level crossing safety should consider the specific risks at each level crossing before determining the most effective, and cost-effective, means of warning. A concern for many railway infrastructure managers is that their legal obligations are unclear. It is often argued that since a collision at a level crossing is likely to be more serious than a collision between road vehicles at a road junction,
infrastructure managers have a duty of care to provide the best warning devices that are available, and therefore barriers should be provided at all level crossings. However, it is unclear whether railways necessarily have the burden of responsibility to protect road users from every folly of their own actions. If a road user has sufficient sight distance to make a safe decision whether or not to cross a level crossing, it is unclear whether the railway should necessarily be going to the expense of providing additional information - after all there is no need to provide traffic lights at every road intersection. Secondly, there is no clear information available to show that active warning devices in Australia necessarily provide better protection than passive devices. Since the law is unclear regarding rail infrastructure managers’ responsibilities, and since the available evidence in Australia is mute on whether active warning devices provide any better protection, some infrastructure managers install barriers “just to
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48