IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Ufton Nervet level crossing.
Gazzadp
post Apr 21 2015, 06:46 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 193
Joined: 29-March 12
Member No.: 8,684



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.


--------------------
Obnoxious possiby, VEXATIOUS definitely not.

*****

www.notellingyou.not
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Apr 22 2015, 07:04 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,709
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lee
post Apr 22 2015, 02:44 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 28-May 09
Member No.: 110



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Apr 22 2015, 05:59 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,242
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Apr 22 2015, 10:38 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,709
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



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

Well they have at Athelney. No plans to replace that one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post Apr 23 2015, 02:33 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,907
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Apr 22 2015, 11:38 PM) *
Well they have at Athelney. 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Apr 23 2015, 05:35 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,242
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Apr 23 2015, 06:44 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,326
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Apr 24 2015, 08:44 AM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,709
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



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, Post #3.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Apr 24 2015, 09:15 AM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,709
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Apr 24 2015, 10:21 AM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,326
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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, Post #3.


...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...


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Apr 24 2015, 10:29 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,242
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Apr 24 2015, 10:31 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,242
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Apr 24 2015, 01:39 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,326
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Apr 25 2015, 09:26 AM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,709
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MontyPython
post Apr 25 2015, 11:08 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 907
Joined: 16-June 12
Member No.: 8,755



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Apr 25 2015, 03:25 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,326
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Apr 25 2015, 03:25 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,911
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Apr 25 2015, 04:35 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,326
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Apr 25 2015, 06:10 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,709
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



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 Hixon. 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th October 2017 - 05:14 AM