Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Ufton Nervet level crossing.

Posted by: Gazzadp Apr 21 2015, 06:46 PM

Interesting piece on Meridian Tonight this evening regarding the level crossing at Ufton Nervet, just a shame that ITV Meridian had to go with the "Countries most dangerous level crossing" line. The level crossing there is no more dangerous than the hundreds of others through the UK.

Thankfully the guy from Network Rail was quick to point out that the crossing there is not inherently dangerous in itself or its design, as all the deaths at the Ufton Nervet crossing have ALL been the result of "crossing misuse"!

Obviously that does not and should not ever detract from the the loss of life caused by the fatal derailing, but people need to bear in mind NO crossing is safe when it comes to a suicidal person, wishing to get a vehicle on the tracks.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 22 2015, 07:04 AM

QUOTE (Gazzadp @ Apr 21 2015, 07:46 PM) *
Interesting piece on Meridian Tonight this evening regarding the level crossing at Ufton Nervet, just a shame that ITV Meridian had to go with the "Countries most dangerous level crossing" line. The level crossing there is no more dangerous than the hundreds of others through the UK.

Thankfully the guy from Network Rail was quick to point out that the crossing there is not inherently dangerous in itself or its design, as all the deaths at the Ufton Nervet crossing have ALL been the result of "crossing misuse"!

Well said Gazz.
Always good to hear a balanced point of view against media frenzy.
Between Newbury and Exeter there are 4 more identical AHB crossings at Athelney, Victory, Bradfrod-on-Tone and Hele.
Not to mention the manual gated crossing at Crofton.
If we are saying Ufton is dangerous then so are all these others, especially Crofton.
As many say, I think the money would be better spent at Thatcham or similar.


Posted by: Lee Apr 22 2015, 02:44 PM

But no one has died at Thatcham rolleyes.gif

Don't get me wrong, I empathise with the survivors and relatives of the UN incident, but had the incident happened at Thatcham, they'd have campaigned for a bridge there as well right?

£ for £, time spent in the Qs at Thatcham, it doesn't sense to me.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 22 2015, 05:59 PM

I suspect an aspect of this is that there have been more than one incidence of a similar nature. The rail company has a duty of care for its passengers and staff. While it seems a nonsense, I can see why they wish to take this problem away.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 22 2015, 10:38 PM

QUOTE (Lee @ Apr 22 2015, 03:44 PM) *
But no one has died at Thatcham rolleyes.gif

http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/somerset_news/10311533.Inquest_opens_into_Athelney_level_crossing_crash_victim_Dennis_William_France/?ref=rss. No plans to replace that one.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 23 2015, 02:33 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Apr 22 2015, 11:38 PM) *
http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/somerset_news/10311533.Inquest_opens_into_Athelney_level_crossing_crash_victim_Dennis_William_France/?ref=rss. No plans to replace that one.


How? I mean, The lights flash, the barrier comes down, you stop. Lights stop flashing, barrier goes up, you go. How, in Petra the supreme beings name, can you get that wrong? Or am I missing something?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 23 2015, 05:35 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Apr 23 2015, 03:33 PM) *
How? I mean, The lights flash, you put your foot down to beat the lights, you make it, but the person behind doesn't, the barrier comes down, you die. Lights stop flashing, barrier goes up, you're 200 yrds down the track. How, in Petra the supreme beings name, can you get that wrong? Or am I missing something?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 23 2015, 06:44 PM

I suppose as it's happened twice at Ufton; emotion now cuts in and damages the decision making process. However, it seems that a bridge is going in and in the long term that might not be a bad thing. After all, for Thatcham it destroys the 'it's technically too difficult' and the 'it's too expensive' claims at a stroke. So, it now really is a matter of pushing your local politicians to stop inhibiting local commerce and get this and the associated road improvements underway.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 24 2015, 08:44 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Apr 23 2015, 03:33 PM) *
How? I mean, The lights flash, the barrier comes down, you stop. Lights stop flashing, barrier goes up, you go. How, in Petra the supreme beings name, can you get that wrong? Or am I missing something?

Agreed, but someone on here said, on another thread on crossings, that the flashing lights should be replaced with conventional traffic lights because, I think the words were similar to, "someone could easily be confused by them"! ohmy.gif
Personally I think it is (will be) a monstrosity, towering above the surrounding countryside (remember it has to clear the forthcoming catenary), flat countryside, which is why it was built as a level crossing in the first place.

EDIT. Here you go, found it, http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=2934&pid=100883&st=0&#entry100883.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 24 2015, 09:15 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Apr 22 2015, 06:59 PM) *
The rail company has a duty of care for its passengers and staff.

UK has the safest railway in Europe Andy.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 24 2015, 10:21 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Apr 24 2015, 09:44 AM) *
Agreed, but someone on here said, on another thread on crossings, that the flashing lights should be replaced with conventional traffic lights because, I think the words were similar to, "someone could easily be confused by them"! ohmy.gif
Personally I think it is (will be) a monstrosity, towering above the surrounding countryside (remember it has to clear the forthcoming catenary), flat countryside, which is why it was built as a level crossing in the first place.

EDIT. Here you go, found it, http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=2934&pid=100883&st=0&#entry100883.


...then we also have a good few sensible drivers who suggest, even on this forum that a two barrier crossing would be safer. Yet the rail industry simply says no. We may well have the safest railway in Europe but we've had two fatalities on a local level crossing and somewhat too many elsewhere. Rather than simply dismissing other suggestions out of hand, good safety practice would at least investigate and give a considered response. We may well have the safest railway in Europe, but remember, that's just at this moment in time. It's always worth listening to your customers...

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 24 2015, 10:29 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Apr 24 2015, 10:15 AM) *
UK has the safest railway in Europe Andy.

That might be the case, but doesn't change the point. If there have been more sever incidents at one point than another, unless there is a budget to make the same mitigation at all points, it is logical to target the ones with the highest incident rate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 24 2015, 10:31 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Apr 23 2015, 07:44 PM) *
I suppose as it's happened twice at Ufton; emotion now cuts in and damages the decision making process. However, it seems that a bridge is going in and in the long term that might not be a bad thing. After all, for Thatcham it destroys the 'it's technically too difficult' and the 'it's too expensive' claims at a stroke. So, it now really is a matter of pushing your local politicians to stop inhibiting local commerce and get this and the associated road improvements underway.

I'm not sure they have much power to affect anything.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 24 2015, 01:39 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Apr 24 2015, 11:31 AM) *
I'm not sure they have much power to affect anything.


Undoubtedly right, but it would at least give them something useful and productive to do!

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 25 2015, 09:26 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Apr 24 2015, 11:21 AM) *
...then we also have a good few sensible drivers who suggest, even on this forum that a two barrier crossing would be safer. Yet the rail industry simply says no. We may well have the safest railway in Europe but we've had two fatalities on a local level crossing and somewhat too many elsewhere. Rather than simply dismissing other suggestions out of hand, good safety practice would at least investigate and give a considered response. We may well have the safest railway in Europe, but remember, that's just at this moment in time. It's always worth listening to your customers...


QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Apr 24 2015, 11:29 AM) *
That might be the case, but doesn't change the point. If there have been more sever incidents at one point than another, unless there is a budget to make the same mitigation at all points, it is logical to target the ones with the highest incident rate.

I'll accept those arguments on all points bearing in mind that...

Safety is at the forefront of all UK railway operations and companies, hence my safest in Europe point.

I still maintain that if Ufton isn't safe then neither are any other AHBC's.
Ufton has gained a reputation, fed to a large extent by the media, this paper being one of the main culprits.
That is all that differs it from the others.
Sadly, if someone is determined to do it they will find somewhere else.

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 25 2015, 11:08 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Apr 23 2015, 07:44 PM) *
..... However, it seems that a bridge is going in and in the long term that might not be a bad thing. After all, for Thatcham it destroys the 'it's technically too difficult' and the 'it's too expensive' claims at a stroke. So, it now really is a matter of pushing your local politicians to stop inhibiting local commerce and get this and the associated road improvements underway.


I don't think it changes the Thatcham situation at all. the problem at Thatcham is it is not surrounded by open fields but buildings and other road junctions plus the close proximity of the canal. Were it not for this I am sure Thatcham would be high on Network Rail's list.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 25 2015, 03:25 PM

The big concern is that it's not even on the Strategic Planning List. The amount of planning gain money the Council have extracted from the developments round here even in recent years would have significantly dented the cost. Plus there is a big environmental gain, far less heavy traffic through Newbury.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 25 2015, 03:25 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Apr 25 2015, 10:26 AM) *
I still maintain that if Ufton isn't safe then neither are any other AHBC's.
Ufton has gained a reputation, fed to a large extent by the media, this paper being one of the main culprits.
That is all that differs it from the others.


From what I understand Network Rail are keen to do away with all such crossings - this will take a lot of time and money - but they have to start somewhere and Ufton is both notorious and easy to replace.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 25 2015, 04:35 PM

That's easy to say, but without a published strategy, hard to take seriously.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 25 2015, 06:10 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Apr 25 2015, 04:25 PM) *
From what I understand Network Rail are keen to do away with all such crossings - this will take a lot of time and money

They are, ever since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hixon_rail_crash. Late 60's!!
QUOTE (blackdog @ Apr 25 2015, 04:25 PM) *
.- but they have to start somewhere and Ufton is both notorious and easy to replace.

Easy to replace? I would suggest than many are easier?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 25 2015, 07:06 PM

Frankly, I've got some sympathy with the railways. We aren't good at transport in this country; delay isn't seen as the costly issue it really is by our 'leaders'. The cost of things like crossing replacements isn't just down to the rail people. For instance, how many years did we have to sit and fume at Cow Lane in Reading whilst the Councils refused any help! Your extra 20 minutes journey time isn't seen as important.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 25 2015, 08:34 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Apr 25 2015, 07:10 PM) *
Easy to replace? I would suggest than many are easier?


I'm no expert (not even close) but it's a simple bridge, plenty of space to build it - where do they come easier? Just thinking of the few that I know (any sort of gated road crossing) - Thatcham, cramped, adjacent canal and river, station access; Hamstead Marshall, better but still constrained to the south; Wokingham - in the middle of the town. I'm sure there will be plenty more as easy as Ufton, but there can't be many easier road crossings unless they can simply close the road.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 26 2015, 05:07 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Apr 25 2015, 09:34 PM) *
I'm no expert (not even close) but it's a simple bridge, plenty of space to build it - where do they come easier? Just thinking of the few that I know (any sort of gated road crossing) - Thatcham, cramped, adjacent canal and river, station access; Hamstead Marshall, better but still constrained to the south; Wokingham - in the middle of the town. I'm sure there will be plenty more as easy as Ufton, but there can't be many easier road crossings unless they can simply close the road.

Fair comment bd but, to be clear, I was actually referring to AHBC's.
Anyway, decision made, it will be done. It would seem that NR are removing a reputation rather than an increased physical danger.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 26 2015, 08:44 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Apr 25 2015, 09:34 PM) *
I'm no expert (not even close) but it's a simple bridge, plenty of space to build it - where do they come easier? Just thinking of the few that I know (any sort of gated road crossing) - Thatcham, cramped, adjacent canal and river, station access; Hamstead Marshall, better but still constrained to the south; Wokingham - in the middle of the town. I'm sure there will be plenty more as easy as Ufton, but there can't be many easier road crossings unless they can simply close the road.


The replacement doesn't necessarily need to be in exactly the same place. Thatcham is a good example, where if there had been some even just adequate thought in past strategic plans, a better crossing would have been in place and paid for by now.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 26 2015, 10:29 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Apr 26 2015, 09:44 PM) *
The replacement doesn't necessarily need to be in exactly the same place. Thatcham is a good example, where if there had been some even just adequate thought in past strategic plans, a better crossing would have been in place and paid for by now.


Moving the crossing is a solution to the problem, but not a cheap one. The fact remains that Ufton is an easy, cheap (if £8million can ever be deemed cheap) crossing to remove from the system.

It's never been Ufton or Thatcham just Ufton or some other similar location somewhere else in the country.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 27 2015, 04:51 AM

£8M, cost of progress maybe??
Ufton was never a safety issue when it was controlled by a signalman in an adjacent box!! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: On the edge Apr 27 2015, 05:47 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Apr 27 2015, 05:51 AM) *
£8M, cost of progress maybe??
Ufton was never a safety issue when it was controlled by a signalman in an adjacent box!! rolleyes.gif


Very good point!

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 29 2016, 03:46 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/19678/ufton-nervet-rail-bridge-nears-completion.html?
Unfortunately it has a long way to go to reach that dubious accolade. sad.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)