Introducing Automated Obstacle Detection to British Level Crossings

Abstract

This paper discusses the implementation of automated obstacle detection to British level crossings to improve safety and efficiency, reduce costs and analyse how successful this could be. There are over 6000 level crossings in Britain, and they are the largest single risk to the railways; one method to improve their safety is by introducing automated obstacle detection. Over the last ten years, there have been, on average, nine deaths a year at level crossings (Rail Safety and Standards Board in Annual safety performance report. Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited, SL, 2016) (excluding suicides), making them a high priority for Network Rail to improve. Obstacle detection would not just help improve the safety of level crossings, but it could also reduce the costs associated with level crossing signallers and operators and would lower the waiting times for road vehicles and pedestrians. With research also being done into the future possibility of introducing autonomous trains to the British railways, the combination of this and the obstacle detection system proposed could see a large improvement in safety across the level crossings.

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of MCB-OD Level Crossings in Britain

Level crossings with obstacle detection
Number	Name	Individual risk	Collective risk	Line speed (mph)	Number of trains	Usage per day
1	Allens West	J	4	45	71	5535 vehicles, 351 pedestrians or cyclists
2	Aslockton	J	6	75	54	1242 vehicles, 108 pedestrians or cyclists
3	Attleborough	I	4	90	65	6561 vehicles, 529 pedestrians or cyclists
4	Auckley	J	6	75	29	1688 vehicles, 162 pedestrians or cyclists
5	Balderton	F	8	125	229	5 vehicles, 1 pedestrians or cyclists
6	Balne	F	7	125	151	27 vehicles, 14 pedestrians or cyclists
7	Balne Lowgate	F	7	125	151	27 vehicles, 14 pedestrians or cyclists
8	Berwick	H	4	90	142	4131 vehicles, 216 pedestrians or cyclists
9	Billingshurst	F	3	60	120	2282 vehicles, 999 pedestrians or cyclists
10	Bingham	J	5	75	65	5454 vehicles, 162 pedestrians or cyclists
11	Blankney	J	6	75	49	4887 vehicles, 122 pedestrians or cyclists
12	Blue Gowt	I	8	75	28	95 vehicles, 27 pedestrians or cyclists
13	Brandon	J	4	90	65	11,176 vehicles, 178 pedestrians or cyclists
14	Brewery Lane	H	8	75	23	26 vehicles, 18 pedestrians or cyclists
15	Brierfield	J	6	50	37	2755 vehicles, 250 pedestrians or cyclists
16	Broad Oak	E	4	60	53	215 vehicles, 39 pedestrians or cyclists
17	Burn Lane	I	8	75	29	108 vehicles, 27 pedestrians or cyclists
18	Cheal Road	J	9	75	23	56 vehicles, 6 pedestrians or cyclists
19	Church Lane	I	9	75	18	20 vehicles, 6 pedestrians or cyclists
20	Dean	I	6	85	77	567 vehicles, 27 pedestrians or cyclists
21	Dean Hill	J	6	85	77	1188 vehicles, 27 pedestrians or cyclists
22	Eccles Road	I	6	90	70	1754 vehicles, 89 pedestrians or cyclists
23	Fenwick	F	7	125	151	33 vehicles, 11 pedestrians or cyclists
24	Fish Dock Road	J	5	25	72	3971 vehicles, 223 pedestrians or cyclists
25	Flax Mill	H	7	75	33	68 vehicles, 35 pedestrians or cyclists
26	Folly Bank	J	6	75	29	2241 vehicles, 149 pedestrians or cyclists
27	Four Lane Ends	G	6	70	63	324 vehicles, 135 pedestrians or cyclists
28	Garden Street	F	3	15	72	2436 vehicles, 3092 pedestrians or cyclists
29	Golden High Hedges	L	12	75	18	27 vehicles
30	Gosberton	J	7	75	23	1134 vehicles, 54 pedestrians or cyclists
31	Green Lane	F	3	60	50	3456 vehicles, 108 pedestrians or cyclists
32	Harling Road	I	5	75	71	3375 vehicles, 108 pedestrians or cyclists
33	Henwick Hall	J	8	75	29	216 vehicles, 27 pedestrians or cyclists
34	Heyworth	F	6	125	156	18 vehicles, 17 pedestrians or cyclists
35	Holme	G	4	125	293	1482 vehicles, 47 pedestrians or cyclists
36	Huncoat	I	5	70	102	1690 vehicles, 113 pedestrians or cyclists
37	Kesteven	J	6	60	73	2241 vehicles, 14 pedestrians or cyclists
38	Kingsknowe	D	2	70	131	1377 vehicles, 122 pedestrians or cyclists
39	Kirknewton	I	4	95	115	4147 vehicles, 247 pedestrians or cyclists
40	Lakenheath	J	6	75	70	4762 vehicles, 30 pedestrians or cyclists
41	Littleworth	K	6	75	30	7560 vehicles, 27 pedestrians or cyclists
42	Llanelli East	G	3	75	85	6210 vehicles, 1431 pedestrians or cyclists
43	Llanelli West	F	3	75	79	540 vehicles, 1323 pedestrians or cyclists
44	Moss	H	5	125	151	2606 vehicles, 14 pedestrians or cyclists
45	Nantwich	H	3	60	62	9234 vehicles, 2781 pedestrians or cyclists
46	North Carr	K	10	75	24	81 vehicles
47	Orston Lane	I	6	75	58	783 vehicles, 135 pedestrians or cyclists
48	Pevensey	I	4	70	110	5616 vehicles, 162 pedestrians or cyclists
49	Plumpton	I	6	90	78	918 vehicles, 54 pedestrians or cyclists
50	Polegate	F	2	90	148	7128 vehicles, 2889 pedestrians or cyclists
51	Prees	J	8	90	62	324 vehicles
52	Pulford	E	4	60	39	729 vehicles
53	Rowston	I	8	75	49	81 vehicles, 14 pedestrians or cyclists
54	Sandhill Lane	H	6	70	105	501 vehicles, 100 pedestrians or cyclists
55	Saxilby	G	6	65	73	297 vehicles, 135 pedestrians or cyclists
56	Scopwick	J	6	75	49	2478 vehicles, 23 pedestrians or cyclists
57	Shippea Hill	I	6	90	65	2160 vehicles, 81 pedestrians or cyclists
58	Sleaford North	J	9	55	49	162 vehicles
59	Smithy Bridge	H	4	70	153	4104 vehicles, 324 pedestrians or cyclists
60	Spooner Row	I	6	75	70	2011 vehicles. 65 pedestrians or cyclists
61	St. James Deeping	K	7	75	28	1368 vehicles, 22 pedestrians or cyclists
62	Sykes Lane	F	6	65	73	59 vehicles, 108 pedestrians or cyclists
63	Thorpe Gates	I	5	90	105	3321 vehicles, 81 pedestrians or cyclists
64	Thorpe Hall	I	5	90	108	2444 vehicles, 128 pedestrians or cyclists
65	Tinsley	L	12	75	28	20 vehicles
66	Ulceby	I	5	40	173	2529 vehicles, 77 pedestrians or cyclists
67	Wallsend	J	4	70	110	8505 vehicles, 189 pedestrians or cyclists
68	Water Drove	I	8	75	23	47 vehicles, 12 pedestrians or cyclists
69	Wellowgate	F	2	15	72	2257 vehicles, 5222 pedestrians or cyclists
70	Wem	H	4	100	71	3672 vehicles, 621 pedestrians or cyclists
71	Wrenbury	I	6	80	62	783 vehicles, 81 pedestrians or cyclists

Appendix 2: Spreadsheet of Individual and Collective Risk

Individual risk letter and collective risk number
Type of level crossing	Type of risk	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	Total	Sum	Average risk
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Automatic barrier crossing	Individual	0	0	0	20	30	30	17	10	4	4	2	2	3	122	770	F
	Collective	0	12	8	52	19	21	2	6	1	0	0	0	1	122	561	5
Automatic half barrier crossing	Individual	0	0	20	186	137	55	15	10	7	3	1	0	0	434	2108	E
	Collective	9	102	76	147	45	50	4	1	0	0	0	0	0	434	1590	4
Automatic open crossing	Individual	0	0	0	7	4	1	4	2	2	3	0	3	4	30	234	H
	Collective	0	2	2	3	10	8	1	1	0	1	0	0	2	30	171	6
Footpath crossing	Individual	0	13	1310	1090	52	51	0	3	0	0	0	0	47	2566	9517	D
	Collective	2	38	50	307	195	581	278	269	120	424	181	74	47	2566	18,825	7
Footpath crossing with miniature stop lights	Individual	0	0	33	48	1	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	87	341	D
	Collective	0	2	7	24	8	28	7	5	0	3	1	0	2	87	485	6
Manned barrier crossing	Individual	0	0	0	0	8	20	49	43	24	17	10	9	1	181	1464	H
	Collective	0	19	16	49	27	54	6	5	1	2	1	0	1	181	876	5
Manned barrier crossing monitored by CCTV	Individual	0	0	0	7	24	57	114	90	104	82	23	7	0	508	4101	H
	Collective	6	41	54	134	72	139	23	25	6	3	1	3	1	508	2485	5
Manned gates	Individual	0	0	0	2	6	17	22	29	23	6	10	7	3	125	1026	H
	Collective	0	1	2	12	17	28	14	32	8	6	2	2	1	125	854	7
Open crossing	Individual	0	0	4	7	4	6	4	3	5	1	1	2	5	42	303	G
	Collective	0	2	2	10	7	10	2	5	2	1	0	0	1	42	240	6
User-worked crossing	Individual	22	126	169	68	12	6	1	0	0	0	0	12	46	462	1898	D
	Collective	2	3	6	61	17	93	30	97	46	39	11	15	42	462	3550	8
User-worked crossing with miniature stop lights	Individual	2	52	37	9	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	104	290	C
	Collective	2	8	11	39	13	12	4	7	1	4	0	1	2	104	515	5
User-worked crossing with telephone	Individual	24	404	850	366	18	2	3	2	0	0	0	2	50	1721	5659	C
	Collective	1	13	24	185	131	358	151	330	191	246	18	23	50	1721	12,642	7

Appendix 3: Network Rail Level Crossing Closure List

Appendix 4: Lincoln High Street Level Crossing Images

Appendix 5: Graph of Train Approximated Arrival Times

For Scenario 3, the time taken to stop is a distance of 50 m back from the level crossing. For Scenario 1 and 2, it is the time taken for the train to reach the level crossing. At lower speeds, this distance of 50 m is quite significant because it is the reason why Scenario 3 has a lower arrival time than Scenario 2.