When the Victorian railway builders came along, Britain was criss-crossed with roads and tracks. Where those rights of way were at the same level as the new railway, level crossings were installed and countless crossing-keepers engaged. Thus were sown the seeds of the conflict between road users and railway companies.

As rail traffic increased, many crossings were replaced with bridges. But as the 21st century began, thousands of crossings remained. And deaths and injuries at these crossings have come to greater prominence as engineers have tackled other risks on the rail network – with measures such as power-operated carriage doors and the train protection and warning system to reduce the chances of signals being passed at danger.

In 2004, seven people died after a motorist apparently chose to end his life by stopping his car on a Berkshire level crossing, in the path of an express train. A year later, two teenage girls were killed on an Essex foot crossing after not realising that a second train was approaching.

These, and many other incidents, have fuelled a drive to close level crossings. In January, Network Rail announced it had met its target, set in 2010, of closing 750 crossings – 10% of the total – by April 2014. The rail infrastructure owner aims to close 500 more in the next five-year regulatory control period.

The crossings will be replaced by bridges, for which the industry has developed a suite of standard components – catching up with military practice. The suite covers local permutations, such as the positioning of ramps and whether anti-vandalism measures or lighting are needed. Network Rail estimates that standardisation, along with awarding bulk contracts, should cut the cost of each new footbridge from £1 million to less than £600,000, and accelerate delivery.

But on busy roads, the cost of replacing level crossings with bridges is often prohibitive, especially where buildings would require demolition. Affordability is critical, with constant pressure to improve efficiency. So, in parallel with the closure programme, Network Rail is implementing technologies that promise to reduce the cost of operating level crossings.

Chief among these technologies is MCB-OD (manually controlled barrier with obstacle deflection). The system was trialled in Filey, in a relatively urban location, before being applied to two lines – one in East Anglia and the other in Cheshire and Shropshire – that are crossed by A roads. Previously, crossings of this nature have always required manual checking by a signaller, either on the spot or by using CCTV, before the barriers are lowered. By contrast, MCB-OD is fully automatic, requiring human intervention only if the crossing is reported as blocked. 

MCB-OD complements Network Rail’s strategic plan to control the entire network from just 13 centres. Crossings along the Crewe-Shrewsbury line, for example, now come under the South Wales control centre, 250km from Crewe.

However, there were delays in commissioning of both MCB-OD pilot installations, and teething troubles then caused delays to rail and road users. The problems stemmed primarily from additional requirements for UK deployment. In Germany, obstacle deflectors at level crossings use radar to check the area for road vehicles before the barriers descend. But the UK’s Rail Safety and Standards Board calculated that this system would increase risk, since the radar would not detect a fallen pedestrian. 

Accordingly, a second detector, using lasers, was developed and installed to make complementary scans at 150mm and 600mm. The lowest scanner is calibrated to notice a girl aged nine lying prone, but also proved adept at spotting litter and larger birds, such as crows. The crossings’ rural location – unlike the Filey test site – produced additional false alarms, including a twig resting near a scanner and vehicles spattering mud. 

The problem of dirt on the lens was addressed by additional cleaning by hand or by fitting the lowest detector with a motorised shutter which opens when the warning lights are activated and closes once the barriers are safely closed. Both solutions reduce the operational cost savings that are MCB-OD’s raison d’être.

The lower ‘lidar’ (light radar) detector is now working well where installed, says Network Rail spokesman Russell Spink. “We are now more aware of the subtleties of setting up the equipment to limit the number of false positive detections, and have seen related occurrences reduce,” he says. “Risk assessment has been introduced to determine whether there is a requirement for lower lidar at crossings where we are converting to obstacle detection. The assessment is made on a crossing-by-crossing basis, applying site-specific factors such as line speed, pedestrian usage and crossing condition to decide whether complementary obstacle detection is necessary.”

A second innovative technology benefits public roads, where traffic justifies automatic wig-wag warning lights but not the expense of full barriers. A modular system, trialled at Ardrossan, Ayrshire, enables barriers to be added to the existing warning equipment, thereby avoiding the cost of all-new installations. Network Rail aims to deploy this technology at all its remaining open crossings in Scotland and roll out the system to suitable crossings in England and Wales. So far, 23 crossings have been fitted, with another 41 due to be treated by August.

Most level crossings, however, involve not main roads but minor roads, tracks or paths. These can be simple to close, in some instances just by making a compensation payment to a farmer for the inconvenience of no longer having a crossing between two fields.

Last year, a blueprint for a streamlined procedure for closing crossings was published by the Law Commissions of England and Scotland. However, closing crossings is not universally popular. Network Rail has upset some local residents by closing minor crossings without warning, thereby severing community walking routes. Some closures would be resisted to protect the local tourism economy, especially where coastline would become relatively inaccessible.

“Train lines connect places but they are also lines of severance,” says Ian Taylor, of the Transport for Quality of Life consultancy. “Network Rail’s attitude is that it wants to close as many level crossings as possible.” Taylor’s home country, Wales, is the first in the world to place a formal requirement on all local authorities to map and progressively implement networks of walking and cycling routes, he says. Other countries are watching the outcome of the Active Travel (Wales) Act with interest. He believes that in some places new level crossings will be needed, where the existing route to the other side of the railway involves a detour that deters many people from cycling or walking.

In such locations, new bridges are an option. In 2009, for example, Caerphilly council opened a £3.2 million bridge for cyclists and pedestrians across a railway and river. Since then, however, local government funding has reduced significantly. Perhaps council budgets and expected usage, especially in rural areas, would make level crossings a better solution in such cases. 

However, Spink says: “We do not envision a situation whereby we would be willing to import risk onto the railway by adding new level crossings to the network.” Clearly, the industry will resist attempts to install new crossings. In these rural locations, the solution might be further technological innovations to make existing crossings safer.

In late 2013, Network Rail gave WaveTrain Systems of Norway formal product approval and signed a framework call-off agreement for a product that detects sound waves, transmitted through the rails by trains, to activate a warning at a level crossing. The system was tested at a Norfolk crossing that was frequently misused. 

All the equipment required can be located within 15m of the crossing. Normally a train detector is installed well in advance – in both directions – with trackside cables running to the crossing. Installation, inspection and maintenance are therefore simpler and cheaper with technology such as WaveTrain or satellite positioning, which has also been trialled as a potential method of reducing the infrastructure required for train detection.

At some crossings, where there is no physical barrier over the public right of way, people may assume the line is clear when a train has passed, not realising that another may be approaching from the opposite direction. Network Rail is addressing this problem by installing spoken warnings, which broadcast at the crossing that another train is approaching. So far, more than 50 have been installed.

The modus operandi at many rural crossings, typically those with only occasional road traffic, is that the user telephones the signaller using a dedicated phone beside the track. If the line is clear, the user opens the gates on both sides before driving across, and must then stop again and return to the crossing to shut the gates.

Familiarity can lead residents to take liberties with the rules. In 2009 a pensioner was killed on the Cambrian Coast level crossing she had used for 40 years whenever she left or returned to her home. The accident report suggested that the train timetable was lodged in her memory. But her car was hit by a locomotive on an unexpected driver-training run. The crossing’s phone had not been used for a fortnight. Other accidents at similar locations have resulted from locals leaving gates open.

Network Rail is fitting powered gates at such crossings. Users leave their vehicles and press a trackside button. The gates automatically close afterwards. Even regular users are forced to interact with the crossing, rather than treating it as just another section of road – as can easily happen if gates are left open. A side benefit is that drivers no longer have to walk across the tracks four times when taking a road vehicle across.

Other tools in Network Rail’s box are enforcement and education. The organisation has worked with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to gain approval for fixed cameras which will provide prosecution-grade evidence. 


On the Cambrian lines computers and cameras let the controller know when to operate the barriers

The human factor: linking the driver to the control centre

Computers have taken over almost everything on the UK’s pilot European rail traffic management system (ERTMS) installation, but level crossings are an exception. 

The Cambrian lines west of Shrewsbury have operated with the cab-based signalling system since 2010-11, as a testbed for future resignalling of major routes. GSM-R (global system for mobile communications – railways) transmits a message between the train cab and the control centre in Machynlleth every few seconds, enabling the central computer to update the instructions on the driver’s screen constantly. 

The system does not warn drivers of level crossings. Drivers are still entrusted with watching out for trackside boards and choosing suitable approach speeds.

In the control centre, each barrier-protected crossing has a dedicated monitor screen. As a train approaches, the screen comes to life – leaving it permanently on could be a distraction – to display realtime imagery from the crossing. The controller operates the barriers after ascertaining that the crossing is clear, and switches off the screen once the barriers are down.

Each controller fields phone calls from members of the public at user-worked crossings, and can use monitors to check the precise location of any train. Previously, controllers had no way of knowing where a train was within each long section of track. The new system has the important benefit of reducing waiting time for users – a cause of frustration that can encourage people to ignore warning lights or barriers. On the Cambrian lines, the prospect of being told to wait for up to 20 minutes to cross could have encouraged some locals not to contact the signaller before crossing.