Level crossings: not just a railway issue

Railways need to engage more closely with other stakeholders to ensure risks are managed successfully on level crossings, argues Aidan Nelson, director of Community Safety Partnerships, Britain.

TOO OFTEN, it is said that the rail sector has sole responsibility for managing risk arising at road-rail intersections. This is illogical, even where a road existed before the railway was built a hundred years ago or more, because both modes have changed greatly since then.

Understanding divergent attitudes is helpful in determining how to tackle risk arising at the modal interface. From a railway perspective, there is significant risk from infrequent but catastrophic train accidents whereas from the highways point of view, collisions on level crossings are a very small component of road accident risk.

At both an institutional level and within society at large, there is an abhorrence of catastrophic rail accidents despite the rail sector’s track record of long-term reductions in risk within their direct control. It is important to note that long-term improvements in road safety are also being achieved. However, recent British level crossing practice has not reflected this sustained reduction in risk. Building on the philosophy of the “Operation Lifesaver” initiative devised in the United States in the early 1970s, the British approach is now built around five ‘E’s - Enabling, Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Evaluation.

Enabling means establishing mechanisms that help a diverse range of stakeholders to share experiences, develop a shared understanding of risk at level crossings, and agree a list of actions that each stakeholder will follow and contribute to.

Engineering is at the heart of rail’s contribution to reducing risk at level crossings, with many administrations working to secure an upgrade from a passive to an active crossing or, where risk is higher, from an active crossing protected by lights and bells to one with the added protection of half barriers. The cost of delivering these upgrades is always significant and sometimes prohibitive given the likely risk reduction.

This cost dilemma is the basis for research by Britain’s Rail Safety & Standards Board (RSSB), which highlights very significant cost differences both within Europe, and between Europe, Australia and North America. The report does not identify the safety record of individual countries, but focuses on generic opportunities to drive down the average cost of level crossings. Using the automatic half-barrier (AHB) crossing as a generic baseline, the study shows the highest national average costs to be in excess of Euros 900,000, some seven times that of the lowest.

This yawning gap between different administrations offers many opportunities to do more within a finite budget. The best way to do this is to vigorously pursue closure, as the best level crossing is a closed one. Where this is not a viable option, the study suggests:
• adopting a programme of crossing upgrades and renewals instead of tackling individual crossings • using generic rather than bespoke designs
• addressing design complexity which flows through into equipment and project costs (design costs are on average 7% of project costs, and these are usually highest when design is bespoke and train detection is by track circuits overlaid with treadles)
• going for “plug and play” rather than build and test on site, and
• challenging regulated requirements and established thinking, driving in controls which do not reduce risk sufficiently to justify their retention.

The single greatest opportunity where track circuit occupation drives level crossing operation is proven predictor technology which is demonstrably reliable, inherently less complex and, as an added benefit, offers motorists consistent warning times. Making this move requires less cabling - a significant expenditure in itself, ranging from 2% to 15% (average 5%) of total project costs - but the real question is why should anyone be spending up to Euros 200,000 on additional track circuits merely to drive a level crossing? Switching from track circuits offers an opportunity to reduce total project costs by between 20% and 40%.

	Highway authorities can do much to engineer solutions to enhance safety at level crossings, Nelson suggests.

Today, it is hard to justify any requirement for cabled links between remote locations and signalling control centres to monitor level crossing integrity. Wireless transmission of level crossing status and failure modes should not be an issue. In addition providing a toll-free telephone number to encourage road users to report problems they see has significant potential, which is now being realised in the United States.

Poor management and gold plating can easily drive up cost. Why, therefore, do some find it acceptable to specify standard location cabinets and others spend up to Euros 150,000 on air-conditioned equipment rooms to house similar equipment? Similarly, where it exists, the requirement for large and over-specified bases for equipment and barriers needs to be challenged.

A turnkey approach is really the only way to go, with test and commissioning costs ranging from Euros 15,000 to Euros 90,000 per crossing. Turnkey also reduces project management costs from an average of 20% of total cost to 16%. Finally, for the AHB baseline type, the RSSB study showed that the ratio of non-material labour costs to material costs ranged from 4:1 to 2:1. These ratios alone should be a stimulus for action.

Obstacle detection as a component of automated alternatives to manned surveillance of level crossings (direct or via CCTV) also looks promising, given that manned surveillance can cost up to 90% more than national average AHB costs.

There are strategic opportunities to improve the efficiency of level crossing upgrades by applying the principles of an aircraft type approval, which is essentially accepted on a worldwide basis; why can’t it be the same for level crossings? Just think of the economies of scale and the more competitive market that would result.

Although predictors offer a significant reduction in cost for those still using track circuits, you cannot lose sight of even lower cost solutions to train detection. Likewise, why not make greater use of solar or wind power when mains electricity is not readily available?

Engineered solutions are not the preserve of railways alone. Highway authorities can do much too as it is on their infrastructure that road users take their decision to cross the railway. Enhanced pavement markings, advance warning signs and traffic calming all have a part to play. Median strips to prevent motorists zig-zagging between half-barriers are a case in point and it is incumbent on national highways authorities to provide for these and other measures to reduce risk.

Education is vital because the way in which road users think and behave lies at the heart of level crossing risk. Operation Lifesaver has a track record of sufficient length to allow comparison of the relative efficiency of education and engineering initiatives. Indeed, a study by Mr Ian Savage, transport economist at Northwestern University, Illinois, shows education to be particularly cost-effective. In this context, there are early signs in Britain that Network Rail’s “Don’t Run the Risk” campaign, launched in the summer of 2006, is of value.

Enforcement needs to be deployed alongside education to address those who persist in not using level crossings properly. Again, where photographic-enforcement is used sensitively, technology has a real part to play. Evaluation of the benefits gained from each action to address risk is of paramount importance as the large number of level crossings around the world means that action must be targeted, as few countries are in the fortunate position of achieving universal grade separation between road and rail.

Learning from accidents and their precursors is a core component of evaluation. However, too many investigations by national investigative bodies and rail authorities only really consider the railway-engineered solution and drive a spiral of upgrading which would not occur if equal consideration was afforded to the highway configuration, planning issues and road user behaviour and underlying competence.

Above all, railways should develop open minds and engage with the other players who, when working together, have a far greater ability to reduce risk arising at the road-rail interface. The same issues affect level crossing use and misuse all over the world, and a greater sharing of research, and the innovations that can save lives, must be encouraged.