2013-04-12 (2013-04-09)-CopyOfNRToCC-ExtinguishmentOrderRequest-2013-03-15

7/28/2019 2013-04-12 (2013-04-09)-CopyOfNRToCC-ExtinguishmentOrderRequest-2013-03-15

1/30

----------------------------------------- -----.- ..-~"', .._-

Rail CrossingExtinguishmentOrder- ApplicationFormCornwallCouncilEnvironmentServiceVersion 1.0Last printed 15/01/201316:29:00

DIll! amI all

CO~NWAltCOUNCIL

THIS FORM Of REQUEST fOR A RAIL CROSSINGEXTINGUISHMENT ORDER IS PREPARED BY CORNWALL COUNCILFOLLOWING THE TEMPLATE INCLUDED AT SCHEDULE 1 TO "THERAIL CROSSING EXTINGUISHMENT AND DIVERSION ORDERS

REGULATIONS 1993" (STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 1993 NO 9)

DISTRIBUTED TO THE RAIL UNDERTAKER "NETWORK RAIL" ON:15 JANUARY 2013

AT:

THE RAIL CROSSING EXTINGUISHMENT AND DIVERSION ORDERSREGULATIONS 1993

fORM 1: FORM Of REQUEST fOR A RAIL CROSSINGEXTINGUISHMENT ORDER

HIGHWAYS ACT 1980

TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992

REQUEST fOR A RAIL CROSSING EXTINGUISHMENT ORDER TO BEMADE UNDER SECTION 118A Of THE HIGHWAYS ACT 1980(INSERTED BY THE TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992).

The following questions are to be answered and the information and mapsrequested to be supplied by the applicant to the council which is to be

requested to make the order. Tick the relevant box shown in somequestions. If extra room is needed to answer questions please continue onseparate sheet(s) of paper.

FORAUTHORITY'S USE ONLY

File Ref: /

Page 1 of7


2/30

----------------------------------------------

RailCrossingExtinguishmentOrder- ApplicationFormCornwallCouncilEnvironmentServiceVersion 1.0Lastprinted 15/01/2013 16:29:00

I Date acknowledged: ; ~,'- '-0

1. RAIL CROSSING TO BE EXTINGUISHED(a) Name and location of the rail crossing (including grid reference and

parish or district in which it is located).

AN U~RCoR DE.O R l G-HT 0 F wA "I IN "n~E...PA R CS H Cl F L0 ~G:.-V'1 r-.J kt-l GW,~ l'1 S. HE..){ I ccINN Fee T PAT 1-\ cr.. iJ 1 s".i,..)& .1 H E- 05. G. 12. IbR.F IS" SW499,3iL (Q~ SW 4-4.c:;:{8.~~iz.+

Cb) Name(s) and number(s) of any footpaths and/or bridlewaysleading to the crossing to be extinguished. (Indicate whetherfootpath or bridleway.)

1- H . RE...- PI R ;"':"0 Fe.


3/30

Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order -. Application FormCornwall Council Environment ServiceVersion 1.0Last printed 15/01/2013 16:29:00

(e) List the name(s) and addressees) of the owners, lessees andoccupiers of the land on either side of any path or way to beextinguished.

1~lwo{2.jc. I


4/30

-~.~--------~-------------------------------------

Rail CrossingExtinguishmentOrder - Application FormCornwallCouncilEnvironmentServiceVersion 1.0Last printed 15/01/201316:29:00

(g) Are you prepared to enter into an agreement with the Council inaccordance with section 118A(S)?

I YES

If NO, give reasons.

INO

(h) Give reasons for the proposed extinguishment of the rail crossing(use separate sheets if necessary). Include information about

(i) the use currently made of the existing path, includingnumbers and types of users, and whether there aresignificant seasonal variations, giving the source for thisinformation, together with details of any survey carried out(any circumstances preventing or inhibiting such use mustalso be mentioned);

(ii) the risk to the public of continuing to use the presentcrossing and the circumstances that have given rise to theneed to make the proposed order;

(iii) the effect of the loss of the crossing on users, in particularwhether there are alternative rights of way, the safety ofthese relative to the existing rail crossing, and the effect onany connecting rights of way and on the network as a whole;

(iv) the opportunity for taking alternative action to remedy theproblem such as a diversion, bridge or tunnel, or the carryingout of safety improvements to the existing crossing:

(v) the estimated cost of any practicable measures identifiedunder (iv) above; and

(vi) the barriers and/or signs that would need to be erected atthe crossing or the point from which any path or way is to beextinguished or created, assuming the order is confirmed.

Page 4 of 7


5/30

Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order - Application FormCornwall Council Environment ServiceVersion 1.0Last printed 15/01/2013 16:29:00

Entrv Area for Reasons (Use continuation sheet if re

2. NAMESAND ADDRESSESOF PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKERSIN AREA (Whether or not their apparatus is liI


6/30

Rail CrossingExtinguishmentOrder- ApplicationFormCornwallCouncilEnvironmentServiceVersion 1.0Last printed 15/01/201316:29:00

Entry Area for Contact Details of Statutory Undertakers(Use continuation sheet if required)

3. MAPS AND PLANSList all maps and plans accompanying this request giving details oftheir scale and content. In addition to the map mentioned in paragraphl(d)1 this must include a map of scale not less than 1:25/000 orl if nosuch map is availablel on the largest scale readily availablel showingthe crossing and any paths or ways to be extinguishedl and anyconnecting paths or ways within the general rights of way network.

PLf: A.S.. RE.F~{{. TO fLA;-J ,,\1""f.AcHE-u w!rl \ Cl,",

\ ,) A I A ..cc ALE- Q F \/2500 t.j bT H A,.JtNLRP-.GEME-t-JT n, l1 ..fCALE.. of \/125;0o r...J,- tt E- RE. v' E. I~ s~E- ~ IJ) E..

4. OTHERINFORMATIONGive any other information you consider relevant.

Page 6 of 7


7/30

--------,------------------------------------

Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order - Application FormCornwall Council Environment ServiceVersion 1.0Last printed 15/01/2013 16:29:00

DECLARATION

1/ We

(a) understand that no authority for the extinguishment, obstruction orcreation of any path or way in this request is conferred unless oruntil a Rail Crossing Extinguishment order has been confirmed andcome into force;

Cb) request that a Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order be made to stopup the crossing and any path or way described in Section 1 above;

and

(c) ded e best of my / our knowledge and belief, theincluded in this form is true and accurate.

Signed:

Name in

On behalf of (name of railway or tramway operator)

Address:

Position he

Date: .. J.,2.~ t~.r:.~.~ b Q.:! ~ .Note: The Council will need all relevant information to enable them to

proceed.

Page 7 of 7


8/30

Reproduced f rom the Orc lnanC'>Su", ey Ma? . permission of t t1e con tro ller ot Her Majes ty 'sSta lionery Off ic e. Crown Copyr ight . L ic ence No:010GD4D692

Approximately 10 metres ofFootpath to be Extinguishedwithin the Ne1:\l\Jork Rail boundary

Existing Rights ofWaye 0 e is C

J lONGROCK - MEXICO INN II FOOTPATH CROSS~NG1

Proposed Extinguishment

....

------------

..--

Plot Scale 1:2500

Plot Date 4/2/2013

A, 1101mCentreef MapWindow (E.N): 149959.31254 OutputCreatedfromthe Gt Portal-A4 lands.cape-


9/30

OutputCreated fromthe G:Portal-At. landscape

R ep ro du ce d f ro m t he O rd na nc e S Ur J. ey t \, '1 ap w it h

p ermi ss io n o f t he c on tr ol le r o f H 'e r MaJ es ty 'sSta~onery Office. Crown Cop,' figh l. L ic ence No:010004


10/30

Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order - Application FormMexico Footpath Level Crossing, Long Rock

Appendices;

Appendix A - Reasons for Proposed Extinguishment

Appendix B ~ List of Statutory Undertakers

Appendix C - Other Information


11/30

Appendix A - Reasons for Proposed Extinguishment

The crossing is used throughout the year and this increases during the.summer months with visitors/holiday makers (many thought to be alightingfrom the nearby bus stop) takingaccess to the cost.

Although it is compliant to all safety recommendations It is most likely beingused by pedestrians who may have no experience of crossing railways, it isevident that the manner in which it is used by pedestrians is importing anunacceptably high factor of risk and this has resulted in a recent fatality.

Following the inquest into IIJleath in 2011 the coroner expressedconcern to the safety of pedestrians, which he believed could lead to other

fatalities and recommended it should be closed.

There is insufficient room for even a stepped footbridge at the crossing andsignalling infrastructure makes the provision of Miniature Stop Lightsinappropriate; but there is an alternative detour over Long Rock PublicHighway level crossing 220m to the West. Network Rail are also prepared toundertake any enhancement works that the Council recommends to make thealternative Route more safer and beneficial to the users.

To summarise; ciosure of the crossing is the only viable option to ensurepublic safety. A more detailed supplement will be sent to you during the weekcommencing 18th March.


12/30

Auxiliarv Report for Appendix AReasons for Application fot:

Closure of Mexico Crossina. Great Western Main Line near

Lona Rock. Penzance.15 March 2013

This document sets out Network Rail's reasons for making an application to extinguishthe public footpath over the Great Western Main Line railway known as MexicoFootpath level crossing, located near Long Rock, Penzance.

1. Background

In October 2011, local Long Rock village resident wasccidentally killed whilst crossing the railway at Mexico Crossing. was a

regular user of the crossilliL...!lut on this occasion ~id not respond to anpproaching train and as. crossed the railway.was struck and fatally injured.

She was the second person recorded as fata~ at Mexico crossing, the firsteing on 20 OctQber 1972 when 50 year old __ was believed tQ be trying topull her dog from the path Qf an oncoming train when it struck her.

Following the Inquest in December 2012 into_death, and having heardevidence from the RAIS1 Investigator, the Deputy Coroner exercised Rule 43 2 towrite to Network Rail and Cornwall Council to express his view that the crossing isdangerous and should be closed to eliminate the risk of death to other crossingusers. Network Rail and Cornwall Council have since liaised tQ implement atemporary emergency clQsure and the level crossing has now been closed sinceDecember, pending the outcome of this application.

This application for extinguishment of the Existing Route is also supported by the UK

railway safety regulator, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR). A copy of the letterfrom Principallnspector is included in this submission.

Level crossings are generally only safe when they are used correctly; incorrect usecan be intentional or accidental, but can. both result in seriQUs consequences for theuser. Accidental misuse can be caused by a lack of risk awareness sl/ch as inchildren and young people, or time taken to cross which is increased in those whoare mobility impaired or encumbered such as elderly people, people with visual orhearing impairments, cyclists and people with prams. Network Rail is committed toimproving level crossing safety but is ultimately unable to control how individuals uselevel crossings. This is what drives our policy to close as many level crossings aspossible.

The history of near misses and fatal accidents at Mexico crossing shows that there isintentional and unintentional misuse by vulnerable users and together with the levelof use this underpins our case for closure.

IRail Accident Investigation Branch2 The Coroners Rules, 1984 (as amended)


13/30

2. Mexico FootpathCrossinq

Crossing description

Mexico Crossjng is a pedestrian foot crossing equipped with a wooden decl< andgates. It has a 'stop-Look-Listen' sign on each side of the track where users areexpected to check that it is safe to cross, and whistle boards on the rail approachesinstructing train drivers to warn users by sounding the horn. The crossing isaccessed via kissing gates and it traverses a single track railway line which forms theGreat Western Main Line to Penzance. There are frequent high speed and local trainservices.

Approximately 220m West of Mexico crossing is Long Rock Public Highway levelcrossing. This is a manually controlled barrier crossing whicA provides access to a .beach-side car park (see the attached plan). This crossing has full barriers which arelowered across the road by the signaller before a train is permitted to proceed. Onlywhen the barriers are down and the signaller has confirmed by CCTV imagery that

the level crossing is safe and clear of obstruction are the signals cleared for trains toproceed over the level crossing. The type and operation of this controlled crossingremoves all the risk which is associated with Mexico footpath crossing .

Crossing users

.The usage profile for Mexico crossing has been confirmed by taking censuses andfrom dialogue with local residents and the Council.

Mexico Footpath Crossing is used by a significant number of local people includingdog walkers, cyclists and elderly peo'ple through-out the year to gain access to/fromthe beach and coastal path for leisure purposes.

During the summer months use of the crossing increases significantly with theseasonal influx of tourists .into the area. Many of these. seasonal users are familieswith chHdren who use the crossing to gain access to the beach and coastal path.

The use of the crossing by many elderly people and children affects the risk profile ofthe crossing as they are considered to be 'vulnerable users' either because they takelonger to traverse the railway, or because they do not have a mature perception ofthe risk that trains present.

Similarly, the seasonal influx of tourists affects the risk profile in that these arecounted as 'infrequent users' who are not familiar with the location, and may well notbe used to crossing railway lines by a footpath crossing where they are responsiblefor their own safety by taking due care and attention and obeying the signage to

'Stop-Look-Listen' prior to crossing .

Both of these user types, 'vulnerable' and 'infrequent' are facto red into the riskassessment for the crossing which is described in section 3 .

Accident history

Between April 2011 and March 2012 five members of the public (including __ were accidentally killed at level crossings in the UK and four of thesehappened at pedestrian crossings.

2


14/30

In the last ten years, an average of nine children and adults are killed at levelcrossings in the UK each year.

Two me.mbers of thelij~1 have been killed at Mexico footpath crossing in the lastour decades. was the second person recorded as fatally injured atMexico crossing; the first fatal accident occurred on 20 October 1972 when 50 year

ol~was struck by a train as. was apparently trying to pull_dogout ofts pan;,-- .

Since 2007 there have been a further ten serious sa~ events reported at Mexicoevel crossing as well as the fatal accident involving These events arerecorded in the national railway industry accident and incident database.

Date11/05/2007

03/08/200719/04/2009

21/09/200923/09/200931/10/2010

06/07/2011

07/091201123/10/201117/04/2012

Short descriptlon of the event2C73 (FGW) -Near Miss With Crossing User

Children playing "Chicken" on the crossing . _Several pedestrians with pushchairs responded slowly to approaching train at Mexico FPLC.

Train 2C45 involved in near miss with pedestrian pushing a bicycle at level crossing.,Train2C41 was involved in a near miss with a pedestrian at a level crossing.

Driver of 5F75 reported a near miss at Mexico Level Crossing by a member of the public...Near miss - Driver 2C41 reported woman was on the track chasing a dog 'round in circles'atthe single line points. It is believed this person lost control of her dog whilst using the!crossing.2C42 reported Near Miss with and dog at Mexico LC.

5F75 reported Mexico Level crossing incident -_jumping up and down on the line.Nearmiss when Cl person ran in front of 2C47, 1353 PlymouthPenzance at Mexico lC.

Of the near misses with trains, one involved a group of ten pedestrians with children

in pushchairs, and another was with a group of children playing on the level crossing.Since the accident in October 2011 there have been two further reports of misuse inOctober 2011 and April 2012.

It should be noted that since 2005 there have been no safety incidents involvingpedestrians at the adjacent Long Rock barrier level crossing .

RAlS Investigation into the fatal accident at Mexico crossing in October2011

Network Rail has supplied ORR with its response to the recommendations made byRAlB in its investigation into the accident in October 2011. A copy of ORR'sresponse to RAIS is attached.

3. Risk assessment

Network Rail uses a complex quantitative process to assess risks at all its levelcrossings. These risk assessments help in the decision making process, where topursue closure or where to invest in additional safety measures if closure cannot beachieved, such as on a public road or where there are no suitable alternativesavailable. This risk assessment process was independently reviewed for accuracybefore it was introduced in 2007 and it has been audited internally and by the ORRsince.

3


15/30

The risk assessment process considers amongst other things the type of crossing,how many people use it, available sighting for users, whether there are vulnerableand / or infrequent users, the frequency and speed, and different speeds of trainservices. The resulting risk score provides a normalised figure for risk and consistsof a letter and a number: .

The letter represents the level of risk of a fatality to an individual crossinguser, where A is the highest risk and M is th~ lowest risk .

The number represents the collective level of risk that may include, forexample, train crew and or passengers, as well as those using the crossing.

The highest risk crossings are those which score A, B or C for individual risk and 1, 2or 3 for collective risk. In the Network Rail Western route there are 21 crossings inthis higher risk range out of a total population of 743 crossings.

Mexico crossing was/ast risk assessed in February 2013 scoring C2 and it istherefore considered to be high risk. Crossings in the high risk bands are more likelyto make a positive safety cost/benefit business case to fund works to eliminate,reduce or mitigate the risk at the crossing.

The potential options available to Network Rail for eliminating, reducing or mitigatingrisk at Mexico Crossing are described in section 4.

4. Options for reducinq the safety risk at Mexico Crossinq

Network Rail commissioned technical studies to determine whether there were anyengineering solutions that would improve safety for users or provide a viablealternative to the crossing.

The table below provides a summary of options for Mexico Crossing;

Option Finding Viable(Y/Nl

Available warning time to users is already compliant with ORRguidelines for footpath crossings and standalone work would not bem the East

reasonably practicable. With the curvature of the track as it runsparallel to the beach between Marazion and Long Rock, relocationf signals and signalling equipment cases may provide marginalmprovement but could only be done as part of a major re-signallingcheme and none are planned in the short to medium term,Reducing line

The expectation of Government in funding Network Rail isthat linepeeds shOUldincrease, to reduce passenger journey times. Theyshould not be permanentlv reduced on rnain line routes.Provision of local

There is no suitable technology currentiy available or inevelopment that could provide a local audiovisual warning whichwould be appropriate at this crossing. This is due to the complexityf the railway on the approaches to the crossing, including theunction to and from the single line working, controlled signals whererains can be stopped for long periods and Long Rock barrierrossing. This option therefore is not reasonably practicable,

Provision of a

There isnot enough room for a footbridge (stepped,or ramped) athe crossing due to insufficient land within the operational railwayssing by Network

corridor and the close proximity of residential properties,l 5. Provision of a

It isnot possible to build a pedestrian tunnel under the railway dueo the proximity of the sea and likelihood of flooding rendering thel

underpass unusable.

4


16/30

6. Extinguishment ofThe existing paths and pavements between Mexico and Long Rocklevel crossings provide a safer alternative to using Mexico crossing

and this will create a worst-case diversion of up to 550m. Thempact could be reduced by relocating the bus stop nearer to longock.It has been estimated that walking at a standard speed the diversionwould take a total of around 6 minutes, and for a less mobile elderlyerson walkina at a slower soeed aooroximatelv 9 minutes.

Network Rail has indicated its willingness to work with the Cornwall County Councilto deveiop and fund the option to provide access via the adjacent Long Rockcrossing into a viable scheme and, subject to an agreement with the Council, toprovide funding for the works. This would be likely to include working with them toimprove pedestrian access over Long Rock, relocation of bus stops on the main roadand improvements to the car park and coastal path.

If the extinguishment order is confirmed then Network Rail will also securely fence offthe crossing as required in order to prevent further access or trespass, and willprovide any notices that may be a requirement of the Council.

Network Rail recognises the strength of local opposition to this option, but believesthat the inconvenience of this modest increase in time and distance is far outweighedby the elimination of the risk of serious harm or another death at Mexico crossing.

Network Rail Western Route

5


17/30


18/30

I should be grateful if you would kindly let us know what you propose, and keep us appraised

of developments.

Yours faithfully

HM Inspe~tor of Railways

Page2 of2 4543981

I

I

.,!

t. II!

IrIII

IJ

II

I

I

II


19/30

RAtB Relationship and Recommendation HandlingManaaer

14 February 2013

""J

IOFFICEOF RAIL REGULATION

Dear_

Fatal accident at Mexico footpath crossing (near Penzance), 3 October 2011

I write. to reportl on the consideration given and action taken In respect of therecommendations addressed to ORR In the above report, published on 20 June2012.

The annex to this letter provides details of the consideration given/action taken inrespect of each recommendation where:

Recommendations 1,4 and 5 have been imp!emented2, We therefore do notpropose to take any further action in respect of these recommendations unlesswe become aware that any of the information provided becomes inaccurate, inwhich case we will write to you again; and

Recommendation 2 and 3 are in the process of being implemented3 We expectto update you on progress by July 2013.

We expect to publish this response on the ORR website on 8 March 2013.

Yours Sincerely

2

3

In accordance with Regulation 12(2)(b) of the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) RegulationsW~ r~In accordance with Regulation 12(2)(b)(l) ~. )In accordance with Regulation 12(2)(b)(lI) """,,""""""

Pagelof8

4796842


20/30

Reproduced fnlm the Ordnance SUlVey. Mapp ermI ss io n o f ! he c on tr ol le r e t. H er Maj es 1y 'sS ta ti on er y O ff ic e. G rown Copyr ig ht L ic en ce No:0100040692

LONGROCK - MEXICO INNFOOTPATH CROSSINGroposed Extinguishment

Plot Scare

1:2500

Plot Date

4/2/2013

Network Rail "---~

Existing Rights ofWay

Approximately 10 metres ofFootpath to be Extinguishedwithin the Network Rail boundaryD

--------------------

...

01 .101m

---

(i)Centr e ofMapWind"" (E.N) : 14geS9 31264 Output Created from theGI Porlal-A4 Landscape


21/30

ANNEX

Initial Consideration bv ORR1. All 5 recommendations containe~ in the report were addr~ssed to ORRwhen RAIB published its report on 20 June 2012. After considering the reportI recommendations, on 17 August 2012, ORR passed

Recommendations 1. 3 and 5 to Network Rail;

Recommendation 2 to RSSB; and

Recommendation 4 to First Great Western Ltd; asking them toconsider and where appropriate act upon them ..

2. Details of consideration given and anyaction taken, in respect of theserecommendations are provided below.

Recommendation 1

The intent of this recommendation is for Network Rail to improve safetyfor all users at Mexico footpath crossing by considering whetherimprovements can be made to sighting for pedestrians at the crossingand also by considering whether it is possible to moye the whistle boardscloser to the crossing, taking account of factors that affect audibility (suchas local topography) and,any othfJr effects that might arise from changingthe 10caUonof the whistle boards.

Taking account of the deficiency in sighting time for vulnerable users;Network Rail should:

a. Consider whether improvements can be made to sighting towards theeast for pedestrians on the south side of Mexico footpath crossing(paragraph 128a).

b. Determine the optimum position of the whistle boards at Mexico footpathcrossing and make' any required adjustments. The assessment should identifya better location for the boards that will improve the audibility of train horns atthe crossing, taking account of the need to provide adequate warning for allusers and including consideration of any local factors which may have abearing on the decision (paragraphs 129a, 129b and 129c).

Details of steps taken or being taken to implement the recommendation

3. Network Rail in its initial respons.e on 6 September 2012 advised that:

Part a)Consideration has been given as to whether improvements can be made tosighting towards the east for pedestrians on the south side of Mexico footpathcrossing: Neither the signal nor the location cases completely obscure trainfronts, and they only pariially obscure them for a maximum of one or twoseconds. The view is that the low level of risk caused does not justify the likely50-100k cost of mitigation.

Page 2 of8

4796842

.(


22/30

,(

'.f.'t.,

ANNEX

Signalling renewal is expected within ten years and it is considered that it willbe more cost-effective for these to be dealt with by that project. It should benoted that from the point at which the train fronts become completely visible,sighting time exceeds traverse time and therefore Mexico is already compllantas a passive crossing,

Part b)Consideration has been given to moving the whistle board positions further in,but it would bring them closer to residential areas and the view is that it wouldbe more likely to attract public complaints.

Regular users will be accustomed to the current warning time and shorteningit could become a risk in itself. ' '

The relationship with nearby speed signs and signals has also beenconsidered and it is considered that moving the whistle boards couldcomplicate this. , ' ,Train horns are ,considered audible under normal conditions and,' as at any ,similar location where changeable conditions can reasonably be expected, thepublic need t6 take extra care to check that no train'is 'approaching. The abilityto distinguish readily that the horn is coming from a train is considered a muchmore relevant factor, especially at sites such as this. '

ORR Decision

4. , After reviewing information received from Network Rail, ORR hasconcluded that, in accordance with the Railways (Acyident fnvestigation andReporting) Regulations 2005, Network Rail has:

.:taken the recommendation into consideration; a~d :

has taken action to implement it. :' ,:"

ORR does' not.propose to take, any further action in reiatibn to this'recommendation unless we become aware of an inaccuracy in what we have

, reported, in which case we will write again to RAIS,

Status: Implemented

Recommendation 2

The intentof

this recommendation is for RSSB to consicjer what,additional data needs,to be captured within SMIS to alloW a ~ullevaluationof risk at level crossings and to use it, together with any other relevant

, C/ata,.to enhanoe its current processes for reviewing the 'effect of thechange. made in April 2007 to sounding only the low kme of the train hornfor passive crossings between 07:00 hours and 23:00 hours.RSSB should:

a. identify any additional data that should be captured within SMIS fromaccidents and near-miss incidents to inform future safety decision-making, ,

Page3 of8

4796842


23/30

. j ~

ANNEX

. about level crossings and make the necessary arrangements for that datato be collected by duty holders; and

. b. using the data obtained from implementing part a of this recommendationand any further intelligence contained within SMIS or oth.er sourpes', enhanceits current approach to reviewing the impact of the change to sounding onlythe low tone of the warning horn for whistle boards at level crossings between07:00 ho~rs and 23:00 hours and take actions, if appropriate.

Details of steps taken or being taken to implement the reco~mendation

5 .. RSSB in its initial response on 5 October 20,12,aq~is~~ ~h~t:..Part a

The main data in relation to this recommendation that dQes notcurrently getcaptured in SM/S is whether or not a specific level crossing is .fitted with awhistle board. '

Discussions with Network Rail indicate that they are improving the assetinformation for each level crossing in the context of th~ All LeverCrossingsRisk Model (ALCRM) which could be made available tQ RSSB .. . 'RSSB will therefore work with Network Rail to ensure it is p6ssible tp link theSMIS level crossing locations with the location descriptions in the ALCRMsuch that SMIS incident data can be linked to specific locations and assetfeatures ...

It is anticipated that tMs work will be completed by June.2p13.

PartbOnce the Iinkage.between SMIS and ALCRM locations. ha,s,been mad~ it willbe possible to monitor near miss and accident rates at level crossings withand without whistle boards to determine if there is a dlitiirence in the rates.

If after a period of monitoring long enough to get a reasonable d~t? sample(18 months to 2 years) there appears to be a significant, difference in theincident rates for leyel cross;ng$ with whistle boards compared to those .without, a furlher review of the train horns poliCY could be initiated .. . .".It will not be possible to do this assessment retrospectively for the data beforethe train horns rule. change in 2007 because of the availability of reliable assetdata going back that far.

6. ORR in reviewing the information received from R$SB conc,lud~,dthat

RSSB.'s response did not address the recommenda.t.ioQ. ORR. ~~~refore wroteto RSSB, on ,12 September 2012, asking it to reconsider the recommendation. "and provide a' furtherresponse.' , .. '.': ' " .,

7 . . ' .. RSSB provided further information on 21 December. 2012, advising that:

As RSSB indicated in its response dated 5 October 20f2, Network Rail is ..carrying out census work on the level crossings with the view to giving eachlevel crossing-a unique identification code which wilrenabfe SMIS locationsand localion information in the ALCRM lo be linked. Once this is done RSSBwill be able to monitor near miss rates at the level crossings with and without

Page40f8

4796842

(


24/30

ANNEX

whistle boards on an on~going basis. The whistle board status will only reflectthe position at the time of each census.

Analysis of existing SMIS data suggests that while the overall level of near

miss reporting has been steadily inoreasing sinoe 2002, the proporlion of thetotal near miss reports occurring on the level crossings most likely to be fittedwith whistle boards has remained fairly consistent.

RSSB also know that the number of pedestrian fatalities at level crossings hasfallen from 10 in 2008/09 to 4 in 2011/12. RSSB feel that it is very unlikely thatthere has been a significant increase in either the near misses or the risk atlevel crossings with whistle boards since 2007 ..

However, once Network Rail has completed the level crossing census workRSSB should be able to asses~ the near miss data for level orossings withand without whistle boards for SMIS records going back to 2002, but only onthe basis of the current census data. The results will therefore only be

approximate as RSSB will not know if whistle boards have been added orremoved prior to the census ...

RSSB anticipate that the analysis wi/Jbe possible by the end of March 2013depending on when the Network Rail census data is available.

ORR Decision

8 .. After reviewing information received from Network Rail, ORR hasconcluded that, in accordance with the Railways (Accident Investigation andReporting) Regulations 2005, Network Rail has:

taken the recommendation into consideration; and

is taking action to implement it.

Status: In progress - ORR to update RAIB by end c:f June 2013

Recommendation 3The intent of this recommendation is for Network Rail to undertake a

project to develop and implement a national approach [0 the location andmarking of decision points and the measuring of sighting distanc~s atlevei crossings. This work should be expedited and undertaken as adiscrete exercise rather than as part of the fhree"yearly crossing riskassessment cycle and take account of the emerg~ng findings from RSSB

research project. T-984 'Research into the causesof

p,fJqestrian acck!ents .at level crossings and potential solutions' where relevant. ..

Network Rail, in conjunction with RSSB where appropriate, should,.undertake a project to develop a standard national approach to:

identifying the optimum decision point at each footpath and userworked crossing used by pedestrians;

marking and signing the optimum decision point


25/30

ANNEX

using that decision point in estimates of sighting distance at footpathand other crossings; and

briefing staff involved in crossing risk assessment with regard to theapproach.

When addressing .issues in relation to the marking of decision points, NetworkRail should liaise with RSSB on emerging findings from research project T984'Research into the causes of pedestrian accidents at level crossings andpotential solutions'r and give consideration to the need to draw upon relevantelements of that research project to inform the development of the nationalapproach. In this context RSSB should prioritise those elements of researchproject T984 that deal specifically with the marking of decision points, so thatthey are completed at an early stage in the programme. Once the approach. has been developed, Network Rail should implement a programme to reviewand modify crossings accordingly (paragraphs 130a and 130b).

Details of steps taken or being taken to implement the recommendation

9. Network Rail In its initial response on 6 S,eptember 2012 advised that:The Level Crossing Team are working closely with Rail Safety.and StandardsBoard and members of the team are part of the steering group for ProjectT984. Initial nndings relating specifically to decision points are expected byApril-2013.

The scope of the research also involves investigation into both the conceptandffrst principles ofdecisfon points. The project will inform future planslguidance and standards.

The initial report in April 2013 will shape the plan of action the Level Crossing

team will take. The team will update and provide an action plan and relevanttimescales depending on the interim results in April 2013.

ORR Decision

10. After reviewing information received from Network Rail, ORR hasconcluded that, in accordance with the Railways (Accident Investigation andReporting) Regulations 2005, Network Rail has:


is taking action to implement .it.

Status: In progress ~ ORR to update RAIB by end of June 2013

Recommendation 4

The intent of this recommendation is for First Great Western to proposechanges to Railway Group Standards so that an objective train horntesting regime is mandated after a train has been involved in cerlaintypes of accident or incident.

Page6of8

4796842

(


26/30

ANNEX

First Great Western should make a proposal to RSSB to modify relevantRailway Group Standards to mandate the requirement to test train horns in anobjective manner when a train has been involved in any accident or incidentinvolving circumstances where the sounding of the train horn was either

required by the rule book or employed by the driver during the event.

Details of steps taken or being taken to implement the recommendation11. First Great Western in its initial response on 26 September 2012advised that:

A proposal for a standards change was submitted to RSSB on 19th September[20 12J. This proposal was made under paragraph 5.2 of the Railway GroupStandards Code. The proposal requests the introduction of an additionalSection 2.7 to Group Standard GM/RT2273 mandating the requirement forpostMaccident testing of warning horn equipment.

First Great Western awaits review of the proposal by the technical committee.

ORR Decision

12. After reviewing information received from Network Rail, ORR hasconcluded that, in accordance with the Railways (Accident Investigation andReporting) Regulations 2005, Network Rail has:


has taken action to implement it.

Status: Implemented

ORR does not propose to take any further action in relation to this

recommendation unless we become aware of an inaccuracy in what we havereported in which case we will write again to RJ\IB.

Recommendation 5The intent of this recommendation is for Network Rail to conduct a

network-wide project to optimise warnings for pedestrians at levelcrossings equipped with whistfe boards, taking account of emergingtechnology and the ability to generate local warnings audibly or visually.

Network Rail should conduct a review of the arrangements for providingwarnings for pedestrians at level crossings currently equipped with whistleboards. The review should address:

a. the costs and benefits at each crossing of providing audible or visualwarnings at the crossing itself rather than by approaching trains (takingaccount of the possibility of the significantly reduced costs of visualwarnings referred to in paragraph 120); and

b. at crossings where whistle boards will remain, whether the position of theboard at each crossing has been optimised taking account of all relevant localfactprs including (but not limited to) prevailing wind, local topography, sources

Page7of8

4796842


27/30

. ANNEX

of noise and the traverse time for crossing users and the positive and negativeeffects on railway neighbours (paragraph 130e).

Details of steps taken or being taken to implement the recommendation13. Network Rail in its initial response on 6 September 2012 advised that:

This recommendation will be actioned via a phased approach.

Phase one will be to develop a cost effective method of providing a visualand/or audible warning at level crossings. Phase one is necessary as currentcosts of visual warning technology at level crossings would generate vel}' few

. positive safety cases for implementation.

NB. Smart Cameras are currently being deployed. The criterion fordeployment is night time quiet period usage. '

Phase two is to review circa 1600 crossings fitted with whistle boards to

identify candidate sites for;a. installation of new visual and or audible aids of warning

b. optimising positions of existing whistle boards i.e. moving themG. when no action is required due "tothere being no business case or

when the position of whistle boards is already optimised.

Timesca/e for phase 1 and 2 is 13months (31st October 2013)The third and final phase is works delivery and implementation. At this stagewith no remit provided until phase one is .complete, a timesca/e of 31st March2014 is only indicative. A project plan and further information will be providedonce development funding has been agreed.

Phase one and two Ganbe run concurrently but phase three would need tobe a new SE Safety Enhancement project.

ORR Decision

14. 'After reviewing information received from Network Rail, ORR has. concluded that, in accordance with the Railways (Accident Investigation andReporting) Regulations 2005, Network Ra'i1has:

taken the recommend,ation into consideration; a,nd

is taking action to implement it.

Status: Network Rail has advised that it is taking action to implement therecommendation .. " , .' , , ' '

There is a wider leVel programme of level crossing work which is being.monitored by ORR. ORR will write to RAIB it becomes awa,re that theinformation above is inaccurate.

Page 8 of8

4796842

( ;


28/30


29/30

Cornwall Council- Environment Service - Countrysid~ Access TeamContact DirectoryLast printed30/0112013tO:21 :00

STATUTORY UNDERTAKERELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONPRELlM

RAIL CROSSING ORDER

Western Power Distribution SW PlcRecords Centre.Lostwlthle! Road.BodminCornwallPL31 1DE

STATUTORY UNDERTAKER

WATER SUPPLY ANDSEWERAC3EPREUMRAIL CROSSING ORDER

SouthWest WaterRecords CentrePeninsula HouseRydon LaneExeterDevonEX27HR

END OF LIST

Page 2 of2


30/30

-----------_.~ ... ----- .. -.-

Appendix C - Other Information

There was no public way at this location when the railway was constructedin1850. In 1892 powers were obtained to acquire lands on the northern side ofthe railway and a track at that time was referred as 'Occupation Road'.

Again, there was no mention of any public status. Our records suggest thecrossing became used by local fishermen to gain access to and from theforeshore with their boats and presumably, members of the public takingaccess to the foreshore.

Following exohanges of correspondence with the Council in 1960, theoccupational use had ceased but the Railway Company conceded publicrights had been acquired. The crossing was reconfigured with wicket gatesand a pedestrian deck in November 1961 and thereafter it has beenmaintained as a public footpath crossing.

A fatality occurred in 1972 which first raised the safety issues. In October1991 correspondence with the Council highlighted that increased seasonaluse was being made but the Council advised in March 1992 that there was a'strong objection' to any proposals to close the path and it should remain insitu.

Other discussions have ensued relating to possible closure on safety grounds,

more recently in September 2007 at the 'Road/Rail Partnership Meetings' butit is now the change in Highway legislation which enables a formal applicationfor closure to be submitted on the grounds of promoting publip safety.

2013-04-12 (2013-04-09)-CopyOfNRToCC-ExtinguishmentOrderRequest-2013-03-15

Documents

Transcript of 2013-04-12 (2013-04-09)-CopyOfNRToCC-ExtinguishmentOrderRequest-2013-03-15