Posted By David Brede
I paste below an article that appeared in the TUC 'Risks' Magazine for practitioners to comment on.


'Rail unions have called for urgent action on level crossing safety. The move follows a 15 November incident on a Lincolnshire level crossing where a train crashed into a crossing gate. Earlier this month seven people died in a level crossing collision between a train and a car parked on the track near Ufton Nervet, Berkshire (Risks 182). RMT general secretary Bob Crow said each year 'there are scores of level crossing incidents, and everyone agrees they pose the biggest single danger on today’s railways. Level crossings are a 19th century solution - in the 21st century it is high time for a commitment to separate rail and road traffic.' Keith Norman, acting general secretary of the train drivers’ union ASLEF, commenting after the release of the preliminary HSE report into the Berkshire tragedy, said: 'This confirms our view that additional active safety measures are needed at level crossings to ensure that either automatic or driver operated braking is triggered if obstacles remain on the line.' Norman added: 'ASLEF urges the government and Network Rail to take immediate steps to review new developments in level crossing safety and secure industry wide co-operation to ensure the early installation of such measures.'

Whilst the solution proposed by the unions is theoretically possible, in reality to provide sufficient time for the trains to stop from being alerted to a blockage on the line would require either huge warning distances the would severely disrupt services; or trains running so slowly as to negate the idea of high speed rail travel.

Alternatively all crossings could be bridged or closed at vast expense to the taxpayer for the civil engineering involved or to compensate farmers and others whose livelihoods would be disrupted or made impossible.


Plan C is to say that the safety provided by the existing regime is 'as low as reasonably practicable' so lets do nothing!

That is my analysis. What do you think?

Posted By Ian Waldram
I have a lot of sympathy for the Union position, as continuing acceptance of road-rail interfaces managed by barriers and interlocks goes against the usual 'hierarchy of controls' that OSH practitioners should be using, in which "inherent safety" is the first option to be considered. (I realise that there are still some interface risks associated with bridges or underpasses, but they do avoid the most obvious hazard of regular obstructions on the line, which then have to be managed such that the risk of them occurring at the same time as a train approaches is nearly zero).

Thus, whilst rail engineers and operating personnel might suggest that engineering controls can make level-crossing risks acceptably low, I believe that OSH advisors should advocate removal of crossings in principle. Clearly that can't be achieved without a great deal of expense, so the real issue becomes that of managing the priorities - which is what Railtrack are no doubt doing anyway, and many crossings have of course already been replaced over the years (I'm old enough to recall one on the old A1, in Yorkshire I think). Agreeing what are the real risks will be a complex issue, and there may be some crossings where train speed and/or road traffic frequency will always be so low that significant capital expenditure will, in reality, never be justified in comparison with spending to reduce other fatality risks, for road and/or rail users.

One important point to consider is 'who pays'? In the case of the recent fatal accident, it's pretty clear that rail systems didn't fail, so it might be reasonable that the road budget should pay for any resulting upgrades? Would rail specialists be less resistant to removal in principle if a non-rail budget was involved?

Posted By Bill Bircham
In response to the post by Ian Waldram, as I am a Safety professional with many years experience in the rail industry, I really must make the following comments.

Continuing acceptance of road-rail interfaces using barriers and interlocks, are not these recognised principles a valid way of managing the safety of a system? I accept that the removal of the risk in the first place is always a better option, but not always is this a ‘reasonably practicable’ possibility. If one follows your logic, then we could never have any interface between road users and pedestrians.

The risk of regular obstructions on the line must be managed to nearly zero? What is this all about? Just how big a number do you think it is at now? Do some research Ian, and you will find that the not only is the number very good in relation to possible events, but that the rail industry has also been reducing the number of crossing for some years. Additionally it has undertaken some extensive analysis to determine where the next best improvements in terms of reducing this risk even further are available.

I’m puzzled why you feel able to suggest that Engineers and Operators within my industry will automatically want prove crossings are “acceptably low” – surely you mean ALARP. This ALARP position is the position the whole railway network is in. ALARP has been the guiding principles ever since the industry was privatised and we all had to get to grips with the Safety Case regime. It’s nothing new, higher hazard industries have used it for a while.


Your belief that ‘OHS advisors’ should advocate compete removal of crossing is admirable, hit on exactly the right point of cost, but missed one completely.

The point you missed is this. Many people in the safety profession are concerned about their lack of influence or not being taken seriously. Just imagine how this will help their cause, spouting off about something without really understanding the issues or the risks in enough depth to provide a fully rounded, professional response. It really does undermine a persons creditability, especially if they do it publicly.

PS – Railtrack was put into Administration back in October 2001 and subsequently replaced by Network Rail.

Posted By Ian Waldram
Thanks to the rail specialists who have responded - it's interesting to see some divergence in their comments, and helpful to have my basic errors (as a non-specialist) corrected.

Ben's statistics are most helpful, in particular the evidence that the industry has indeed been working to the 'hazard avoidance' principle and has eliminated a significant proportion of level-crossings.

My point about 'who pays?' was to set people thinking. I am well aware that historically the rail industry has had to pay for maintaining all its track boundaries. However UK society has changed a bit since rail rights of way were first negotiated, and also a clear OSH regulatory principle is that the creators of risk are responsible for managing it, including all relevant expenditure to ensure risks are ALARP. Thus, to the extent that road users present risk to rail employees and passengers, there appears to be room for further discussion!

Ever since I participated in the Ladbroke Grove Inquiry, I have felt that society (and especially the media) often fails to appreciate the very great deal of excellent management (both general and safety) that goes on in UK railways - they get no praise or credit for getting things right, only blame when things go wrong. However the industry may be partly to blame - it's much better at talking to itself than to other stakeholder groups. Hence my suggestion that rail industry OSH professionals might think about agreeing with the 'soundbite' position taken by the Unions, but then use their expertise to ensure that all plans to eliminate crossings use sound risk-based principles, including that the expenditure is funded in proportion to the risks.

Would any other non-rail people care to comment?

Posted By David Brede
Thanks to everyone who has responded to this thread.

To address Ian Waldrams message, it is the policy of the Railway Specialist Group to get representation for IOSH on the decision making bodies of the industry and get full and informed responses to consultative documents so that the full benefit of being the lead body in occupational safety enjoyed by this body can be realised.

As for level crossings,the Victorians bequeathed us a huge legacy of them which we have to deal with now especially as Ben says the occupational crossings used by farmers. Perhaps we should be pressing the political flesh so that when a the funding for a line upgrade is offered that these relics of a bygone age can be taken out.

Posted By Brian John Abbs
This one will run and run.

The issue keeping a resolution from being found will be,who will pay.

The Berkshire incident strikes me as being one of road safety more than rail safety. But the Daily Mail tells us, the poor motorist is too heavily taxed and subject to unfair speeding fines. I can't see the funds coming out of the road budget.

The costs of remedial action will eventually end up on train ticket prices. Which is counter productive if government policy really is encouraging people off roads onto (statistically safer) rail. - Discuss