-----------------------------------------~"',

..

_-

-----.-

..

Rail Crossing ExtinguishmentOrder - Application Form Cornwall Council EnvironmentService Version 1.0 Last printed 15/01/201316:29:00
DIll!

amI all

CO~NWAlt
COUNCIL
THIS FORM Of REQUEST fOR A RAIL CROSSING EXTINGUISHMENT ORDER IS PREPARED BY CORNWALL COUNCIL FOLLOWING THE TEMPLATE INCLUDED AT SCHEDULE 1 TO "THE

RAIL CROSSING EXTINGUISHMENT AND DIVERSION ORDERS REGULATIONS 1993" (STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 1993 NO 9)
DISTRIBUTED TO THE RAIL UNDERTAKER "NETWORK 15 JANUARY 2013 AT: RAIL" ON:

THE RAIL CROSSING EXTINGUISHMENT REGULATIONS 1993

AND DIVERSION

ORDERS

fORM 1: FORM Of REQUEST fOR A RAIL CROSSING EXTINGUISHMENT ORDER HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992 REQUEST fOR A RAIL CROSSING EXTINGUISHMENT ORDER TO BE MADE 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 maps requested to be supplied by the applicant to the council which is to be requested to make the order. Tick the relevant box shown in some questions. If extra room is needed to answer questions please continue on separate sheet(s) of paper.

FOR AUTHORITY'S USE ONLY File Ref: /

Page 1 of7

---------------------------------------------Rail Crossing ExtinguishmentOrder - Application Form Cornwall Council EnvironmentService Version 1.0 Last printed 15/01/2013 16:29:00 I Date acknowledged: ; ~,''-0 1. (a) RAIL CROSSING TO BE EXTINGUISHED Name and location of the rail crossing (including grid reference and parish or district in which it is located).

AN U~RCoR D E.O R l G-HT 0 F wA "I IN "n~E... PA R CS H Cl F L0 ~G:.-V ,'1r-.J kt-l GW,~ l'1 S. HE..){ I INN Fee T PAT 1-\ cr.. iJ 1 s".i,..) & H E- 05. G. 12. I b

R.F

IS"

SW499,3iL

(Q~

SW 4-4.c:;:{8.~~iz.+

.1

cc

Cb)

Name(s) and number(s) of any footpaths and/or bridleways leading to the crossing to be extinguished. (Indicate whether footpath or bridleway.)
PI

1- H . RE...-

;"':"0

Fe.<:':YT f),A T H ~

LE.p\'b \\~G: 10 E)(TI:J~v.\~

.H .

oR g t~I.l) LE. W I~y~ CI~b$.~\N& THAT RfQ (j! /Z..E.

I-\H~~T

(c)

Length in metres of any path or way to be extinguished.

"'IHL L.~&TH \ SAP P r<.c.:))~lJ'-(f.\

(d)

eF tHE1""G.-L

PATH ''-0

-r E-'~

f'-\ E. .- P_

E><T\I..J~UI~HE:!) E- "'~

Description of length of any path or way to be extinguished by reference to terminal points shown on attached map which must be to a scale of not less than 1: 2500 orl if no such map is availablel on the largest scale readily available.

I T L~ P i?.oP oS 'E}) la f': )<. T i 't-.J Lt \ S H -r H E... Fco'l PA..,-H w H E..(2..~ \ T . x I s''T..s W i rH hJ (HE

NTWoP-.~
C;~TI-\
I<'E

E.. PLA\~ E,E.TwE-EN POI~T Pt liT os. (;-fL..I..\) F ~W 44ct g, .~'1,Lt 11 ~ D Pol1ST'& !-'IT os" G: (.t I b
/1

R.A\L bQul'Ji)A({.Y.

"1\-\\5.

is..s

HCl.>,Jt-..J

gEF -:;'W 4418,.5 Lb

Page 2 of 7

Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order -. Application Form Cornwall Council Environment Service Version 1.0 Last printed 15/01/2013 16:29:00

(e)

List the name(s) and addressees) of the owners, lessees and occupiers of the land on either side of any path or way to be extinguished.

1~lwo{2.jc.
C-f!..

I<-l\1

I.S. ',HE.. wHicH

Ol--.J r-JE-P ...

of

(KE.- Lf1~..b
os.s.t.J G-

O\J~

f""H LE-JL
'111 LA l,J E~ -T

PA.5 -~AN]) E-A

IJ])

ll~AT L IE_)
1\\
'1""H F
i="

~T /1f'J~

of
vJE EI0
( H~

L v. L C /2..0 ~.s. l ;-.) G:

L

LF

i~

s.: l:n

FE

;J C E-i:

t) F

IZAILwA Y

(f)

Have you obtained the written consent of every person having an interest in the land over which any path or way to be extinguished passes, in so far as such consent is needed?

If YES, enclose all the written consents If NO, enclose all the written consents that you now possess, and give particulars of those where consent has been refUsed or has yet to be obtained

IHE-P-E AP-E tJo t)'lt-(/Z L!h)Do(,jtJE~~

11 R..Fe
E XT
II)~

-, L Y

AF F

cc:r E- D

ty

'(
J/

& U lc~\~

N E~ -,

Page 3 of 7

-~.~--------~------------------------------------Rail Crossing ExtinguishmentOrder - Application Form Cornwall Council EnvironmentService Version 1.0 Last printed 15/01/201316:29:00

(g)

Are you prepared to enter into an agreement with the Council in accordance with section 118A(S)?
I YES

INO

If NO, give reasons.

(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, including numbers and types of users, and whether there are significant seasonal variations, giving the source for this information, together with details of any survey carried out (any circumstances preventing or inhibiting such use must also be mentioned);

(ii)

the risk to the public of continuing to use the present crossing and the circumstances that have given rise to the need to make the proposed order;

(iii)

the effect of the loss of the crossing on users, in particular whether there are alternative rights of way, the safety of these relative to the existing rail crossing, and the effect on any connecting rights of way and on the network as a whole;

(iv)

the opportunity for taking alternative action to remedy the problem such as a diversion, bridge or tunnel, or the carrying out of safety improvements to the existing crossing:

(v)

the estimated cost of any practicable measures identified under (iv) above; and

(vi)

the barriers and/or signs that would need to be erected at the crossing or the point from which any path or way is to be extinguished or created, assuming the order is confirmed.

Page 4 of 7

1----

Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order - Application Form Cornwall Council Environment Service Version 1.0 Last printed 15/01/2013 16:29:00

Entrv Area for Reasons (Use continuation sheet if re

2.

NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKERS

IN AREA (Whether or not their apparatus is liI<elyto be

affected):
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (e) Public gas supplier Public electricity supplier Water undertaker Sewerage undertaker (if different) Public telecommunications Others (specify) operator

Page 5 of?

Rail Crossing ExtinguishmentOrder - Application Form Cornwall Council EnvironmentService Version 1.0 Last printed 15/01/201316:29:00

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

3.

MAPS AND PLANS

List all maps and plans accompanying this request giving details of their scale and content. In addition to the map mentioned in paragraph l(d)1 this must include a map of scale not less than 1:25/000 orl if no such map is availablel on the largest scale readily availablel showing the crossing and any paths or ways to be extinguishedl and any connecting paths or ways within the general rights of way network.

PLf:
\ ,)

A.S.. A

RE.F~{{.
..cc ALE-

TO fLA;-J
Q

,,\1""f.AcHE-u

w!rl \ Cl,",

I A
tt

tNLRP-.GEME-t-JT

o r...J,-

E- RE. v' E. I~

n, s~

F \/2500
E- ~

t.j bT H A,.J

l1 .. fCALE..

of

\/125;0

IJ) E..

4. OTHER INFORMATION
Give any other information you consider relevant.

Page 6 of 7

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

Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order - Application Form Cornwall Council Environment Service Version 1.0 Last printed 15/01/2013 16:29:00

DECLARATION

1/ We
(a) understand that no authority for the extinguishment, obstruction or creation of any path or way in this request is conferred unless or until a Rail Crossing Extinguishment order has been confirmed and come into force; request that a Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order be made to stop up the crossing and any path or way described in Section 1 above; and ded e best of my / our knowledge and belief, the included in this form is true and accurate.

Cb)

(c)

Signed:

Name in On behalf of (name of railway or tramway operator)

Address:

Position he

.. ~ Date: ..J.,2

t~. ~ .r:.~. t~ b

Q.:! ~

Note: The Council will need all relevant information to enable them to proceed.

Page 7 of 7

Reproduced from the OrclnanC'> Su",ey Ma? . permission of tt1e controller ot Her Majesty's Stalionery Office. Crown Copyright. Licence No:
010GD4D692

....

is C

Existing Rights of Way

-..--

---------Approximately 10 metres of Footpath to be Extinguished within the Ne1:\l\JorkRail boundary

I
1

lONGROCK - MEXICO INN I FOOTPATH CROSS~NG

Proposed Extinguishment
Plot Scale Plot Date

1:2500
4/2/2013

A,
Centre ef Map Window (E.N): 149959.31254

1101m
Output Created from the Gt Portal-A4 lands.cape-

Longrock

./
-"

-" -"

~~-

./\

Reproduced

from

the

Ordnance

SUrJ.ey

t\,'1ap with

L'

permission of the controller of H'er MaJesty's Sta~onery Office. Crown Cop,'fighl. Licence No:
010004<0692

stle\ter

~~)

....

--

- -- ---

~)
~7JJ} ~

'c::::--__

L!

C,!Cle

1;:'ati\

SM

Approximately 10 metres of Footpath to be Extinguished within the Network Rail boundary

.- ...- --

--

- - -- -

...-

.-

.-

-.- .- .-

.-

-- --

...-

-------------I LONG ROCK - MEXICO INN I

Proposed Extinguishment FOOTPATH CROSSING
Plot Scale

I
I

1:1250
412/2013

Output Created from the G: Portal -At. landscape

Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order - Application Form Mexico Footpath Level Crossing, Long Rock Appendices; Appendix A - Reasons for Proposed Extinguishment Appendix B ~ List of Statutory Undertakers Appendix C - Other Information

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 alighting from the nearby bus stop) takingaccess to the cost. Although it is compliant to all safety recommendations It is most likely being used by pedestrians who may have no experience of crossing railways, it is evident that the manner in which it is used by pedestrians is importing an unacceptably high factor of risk and this has resulted in a recent fatality. Following the inquest into IIJleath in 2011 the coroner expressed concern 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 and signalling infrastructure makes the provision of Miniature Stop Lights inappropriate; but there is an alternative detour over Long Rock Public Highway level crossing 220m to the West. Network Rail are also prepared to undertake any enhancement works that the Council recommends to make the alternative Route more safer and beneficial to the users. To summarise; ciosure of the crossing is the only viable option to ensure public safety. A more detailed supplement will be sent to you during the week commencing 18th March.

Auxiliarv Report for Appendix A Reasons 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 extinguish the public footpath over the Great Western Main Line railway known as Mexico Footpath level crossing, located near Long Rock, Penzance.

1. Background

In October 2011, Long Rock the village resident Crossing. accidentally killed local whilst crossing railway at Mexico regular user of the and crossilliL...!lut on thisthe occasion ~id approaching train as. crossed railway.was

was

was a

not respond an injured. struck and to fatally

She was second person recorded as old fata~ at Mexico crossing, the first being on the 20 OctQber 1972 when 50 year __ was believed tQ be trying to pull her dog from the path Qf an oncoming train when it struck her. Following the Inquest in December 2012 into_death, and having heard evidence from the RAIS1 Investigator, the Deputy Coroner exercised Rule 43 2 to write to Network Rail and Cornwall Council to express his view that the crossing is dangerous and should be closed to eliminate the risk of death to other crossing users. Network Rail and Cornwall Council have since liaised tQ implement a temporary emergency clQsure and the level crossing has now been closed since December, 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 letter from Principallnspector is included in this submission. Level crossings are generally only safe when they are used correctly; incorrect use can be intentional or accidental, but can. both result in seriQUs consequences for the user. Accidental misuse can be caused by a lack of risk awareness sl/ch as in children and young people, or time taken to cross which is increased in those who are mobility impaired or encumbered such as elderly people, people with visual or hearing impairments, cyclists and people with prams. Network Rail is committed to improving level crossing safety but is ultimately unable to control how individuals use level crossings. This is what drives our policy to close as many level crossings as possible. The history of near misses and fatal accidents at Mexico crossing shows that there is intentional and unintentional misuse by vulnerable users and together with the level of use this underpins our case for closure.

I Rail
2

Accident Investigation Branch The Coroners Rules, 1984 (as amended)

2. Mexico FootpathCrossinq Crossing description

Mexico Crossjng is a pedestrian foot crossing equipped with a wooden decl< and gates. It has a 'stop-Look-Listen' sign on each side of the track where users are expected to check that it is safe to cross, and whistle boards on the rail approaches instructing train drivers to warn users by sounding the horn. The crossing is accessed via kissing gates and it traverses a single track railway line which forms the Great Western Main Line to Penzance. There are frequent high speed and local train services. Approximately 220m West of Mexico crossing is Long Rock Public Highway level crossing. 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 are lowered across the road by the signaller before a train is permitted to proceed. Only when 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 to proceed over the level crossing. The type and operation of this controlled crossing removes all the risk which is associated with Mexico footpath crossing .

Crossing users

. The usage profile for Mexico crossing has been confirmed by taking censuses and from dialogue with local residents and the Council. Mexico Footpath Crossing is used by a significant number of local people including dog walkers, cyclists and elderly peo'ple through-out the year to gain access to/from the beach and coastal path for leisure purposes. During the summer months use of the crossing increases significantly with the seasonal influx of tourists .into the area. Many of these. seasonal users are families with 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 of the crossing as they are considered to be 'vulnerable users' either because they take longer to traverse the railway, or because they do not have a mature perception of the risk that trains present. Similarly, the seasonal influx of tourists affects the risk profile in that these are counted as 'infrequent users' who are not familiar with the location, and may well not be used to crossing railway lines by a footpath crossing where they are responsible for 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 risk assessment 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 these happened at pedestrian crossings.

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

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

pan;,--

struck by a train

as.

was apparently trying to pull_dogout

of

Since 2007 there haveas been a further ten serious sa~ Mexico level crossing as well the fatal accident involving events reported These at events are recorded in the national railway industry accident and incident database.
Date Short descriptlon of the event 11/05/2007 2C73 (FGW) -Near Miss With Crossing User 03/08/2007 Children playing "Chicken" on the crossing . _ 19/04/2009 Several pedestrians with pushchairs responded slowly to approaching train at Mexico FP
LC.

21/09/2009 Train 2C45 involved in near miss with pedestrian pushing a bicycle at level crossing. 23/09/2009 ,Train2C41 was involved in a near miss with a pedestrian at a level crossing. 31/10/2010 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' 06/07/2011 at the single line points. It is believed this person lost control of her dog whilst using the !crossing. 07/0912011 2C42 reported Near Miss with and dog at Mexico LC. 23/10/2011 5F75 reported Mexico Level crossing incident -_jumping up and down on the line. 17/04/2012 Near miss 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 in October 2011 and April 2012. It should be noted that since 2005 there have been no safety incidents involving pedestrians at the adjacent Long Rock barrier level crossing .

RAlS Investigation into the fatal accident at Mexico crossing in October 2011

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

3. Risk assessment
Network Rail uses a complex quantitative process to assess risks at all its level crossings. These risk assessments help in the decision making process, where to pursue closure or where to invest in additional safety measures if closure cannot be achieved, such as on a public road or where there are no suitable alternatives available. This risk assessment process was independently reviewed for accuracy before it was introduced in 2007 and it has been audited internally and by the ORR since.

The risk assessment process considers amongst other things the type of crossing, how many people use it, available sighting for users, whether there are vulnerable and / or infrequent users, the frequency and speed, and different speeds of train services. The resulting risk score provides a normalised figure for risk and consists of a letter and a number: . The letter represents the level of risk of a fatality to an individual crossing user, where A is the highest risk and M is th~ lowest risk . The number represents the collective level of risk that may include, for example, 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, 2 or 3 for collective risk. In the Network Rail Western route there are 21 crossings in this higher risk range out of a total population of 743 crossings. Mexico crossing was/ast risk assessed in February 2013 scoring C2 and it is therefore considered to be high risk. Crossings in the high risk bands are more likely to 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, risk at Mexico Crossing are described in section 4. reducing or mitigating

4. Options for reducinq the safety risk at Mexico Crossinq

Network Rail commissioned technical studies to determine whether there were any engineering solutions that would improve safety for users or provide a viable alternative to the crossing. The table below provides a summary of options for Mexico Crossing;

from the East Rail 3. Provision of local crossing by Network 2. Reducing line 4. Provision of a

Viable Option Ntrack underpass unusable. Finding The expectation of Government in funding Network Rail is that line reasonably practicable. With the curvature of the as it runs the development corridor to speeds the crossing proximity and the due that of close to could the insufficient sea proximity provide to and reduce likelihood of a local residential passenger within audiovisual of the flooding properties, operational journey warning rendering times. railway which They the Available guidelines warning for footpath time crossings to users is and already standalone compliant work with would ORR not be There It is not isshOUldincrease, possible no not suitable enough to build technology room a for pedestrian aland footbridge currentiy tunnel available (stepped under or the ,or in ramped) railway due at (Y/Nl should not be permanentlv reduced on rnain line routes. 5. Provision of athe scheme and none are planned in the short to medium term, trains can be stopped for long periods and Long Rock barrier parallel of signals to and the beach signalling between equipment Marazion cases and may Long provide Rock, marginal relocation junction crossing. to This and option from the therefore single line is not working, reasonably controlled practicable, signals improvement but could only be done as part of a major re-signalling would the railway be appropriate on approaches at this crossing. to the This crossing, is due including to the complexity the where

6. Extinguishment

Y Mexico The paths and pavements between and Long Rock levelexisting crossings provide a safer alternative to Mexico using crossing Rock. oerson walkina at aaslower aooroximatelv 9550m. minutes. impact could be reduced bysoeed relocating the bus stop nearer to elderly long would take total of around 6 minutes, and for ato less mobile and this willacreate worst-case diversion of up The It has been estimated that walking at a standard speed the diversion

of

Network Rail has indicated its willingness to work with the Cornwall County Council to deveiop and fund the option to provide access via the adjacent Long Rock crossing into a viable scheme and, subject to an agreement with the Council, to provide funding for the works. This would be likely to include working with them to improve pedestrian access over Long Rock, relocation of bus stops on the main road and improvements to the car park and coastal path. If the extinguishment order is confirmed then Network Rail will also securely fence off the crossing as required in order to prevent further access or trespass, and will provide any notices that may be a requirement of the Council. Network Rail recognises the strength of local opposition to this option, but believes that the inconvenience of this modest increase in time and distance is far outweighed by the elimination of the risk of serious harm or another death at Mexico crossing.

Network Rail Western Route

OFFICE OF RAIL REGULATION

Dear Sirs MEXICO FOOTPATH CROSSING, LONG ROCK, PENZANCE HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974

The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) is responsible for enforcing the above Act, which places a duty on Network Rail to manage the risk to users of level crossings effectively and consistently. The ORR supports the company's efforts to close crossings where this is possible, in order to reduce risk. Over 600 crossings have been closed in the UK since 2008. Following the recent inquest into the death of lIat Mexico crossing in 2011, the Coroner has written to Network Rail, Cornwall County Council and other interested parties under Rule 43 of the Coroner's (Amendment) Rules 2008 to advise that in his opinion this crossing is dangerous, after hearing evidence relating to the accident to_and of other near misses that have been recorded at the crossing. The Coroner believes that there is an on-going risk to the safety of pedestrians at this crossing and that it should be closed. We would support the closure of this crossing. For pedestrians to walk across railway lines is inevitably hazardous, even when adequate precautions are in place. At Mexico crossing the precautions are satisfactory, but the history of accidents and near misses is compelling. The presence of a much safer gated vehicular crossing about 200 metres west of the crossing, which can provide the necessary pedestrian accessl lends weight to the Coroner's view. Network Rail has confirmed to us that it will work with Cornwall County Council to identify and take the steps necessary to seek closure of the crossing. In support of this action we offer to discuss this further with you, or provide further information.

(~)
Page 1 of2

4543981

I
.,
!

I should be grateful of developments.

if

you would kindly let us know what you propose, and keep us appraised

Yours faithfully

HM

Inspe~torof Railways

t.

I
I
!

I
r

I I I

I
J

I
I

I
I

Page 2 of2 4543981

"",J.

RAtB Relationship and Recommendation Handling Manaaer

OFFICE OF RAIL REGULATION

14 February 2013

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 the recommendations addressed to ORR In the above report, published on 20 June

2012.
The annex to this letter provides details of the consideration respect of each recommendation where: given/action taken in

Recommendations 1,4 and 5 have been imp!emented2, We therefore do not propose to take any further action in respect of these recommendations unless we become aware that any of the information provided becomes inaccurate, in which case we will write to you again; and Recommendation 2 and 3 are in the process of being implemented3 We expect to update you on progress by July 2013.

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

Yours Sincerely

In accordance with Regulation 12(2)(b) of the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations

W~
2

r~

In accordance with Regulation 12(2)(b)(l) In accordance with Regulation 12(2)(b)(lI)

~. ) """,,""""""

Pagelof8
4796842

Reproduced fnlm the Ordnance SUlVey. Map permIssion of !he controller et. Her Majes1y's Stationery Office. Grown Copyright Licence No: 0100040692

Existing Rights of Way

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

---

...

CD

Approximately 10 metres of Footpath to be Extinguished within the Network Rail boundary

Plot Date Network Rail Plot Scare

LONGROCK - MEXICO 4/2/2013 1:2500 INN FOOTPATH CROSSING Proposed Extinguishment

"---~

(i)
Centre of Map Wind"" (E.N): 14geS9 31264

01

.101m
Output Created from the GI Porlal-A4 Landscape

ANNEX

Initial Consideration

bv ORR

1. All 5 recommendations containe~ in the report were addr~ssed to ORR when RAIB published its report on 20 June 2012. After considering the report I recommendations, on 17 August 2012, ORR passed Recommendations Recommendation

1. 3 and 5 to Network Rail;

2 to RSSB; and

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

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

Recommendation

The intent of this recommendation is for Network Rail to improve safety for all users at Mexico footpath crossing by considering whether improvements can be made to sighting for pedestrians at the crossing and also by considering whether it is possible to moye the whistle boards closer to the crossing, taking account of factors that affect audibility (such as local topography) and,any othfJr effects that might arise from changing the 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 the east for pedestrians on the south side of Mexico footpath crossing (paragraph 128a). b. Determine the optimum position of the whistle boards at Mexico footpath crossing and make' any required adjustments. The assessment should identify a better location for the boards that will improve the audibility of train horns at the crossing, taking account of the need to provide adequate warning for all users and including consideration of any local factors which may have a bearing 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 to sighting towards the east for pedestrians on the south side of Mexico footpath crossing: Neither the signal nor the location cases completely obscure train fronts, and they only pariially obscure them for a maximum of one or two seconds. The view is that the low level of risk caused does not justify the likely 50-100k cost of mitigation.

Page 2 of8
4796842

ANNEX

Signalling renewal is expected within ten years and it is considered that it will be more cost-effective for these to be dealt with by that project. It should be noted that from the point at which the train fronts become completely visible, sighting time exceeds traverse time and therefore Mexico is already compllant as 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 would be more likely to attract public complaints. Regular users will be accustomed to the current warning time and shortening it could become a risk in itself. ' ' The relationship with nearby speed signs and signals has also been considered and it is considered that moving the whistle boards could complicate this. , ,
'

,(

Train horns are ,considered audible under normal conditions and,' as at any , similar location where changeable conditions can reasonably be expected, the public need t6 take extra care to check that no train'is 'approaching. The ability to distinguish readily that the horn is coming from a train is considered a much more relevant factor, especially at sites such as this. '

ORR Decision
4. , After reviewing information received from Network Rail, ORR has concluded that, in accordance with the Railways (Acyident fnvestigation and Reporting) 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
't.,
'.f.

The intent of this recommendation is for RSSB to consicjer what ,additional data needs,to be captured within SMIS to alloW a ~ullevaluation of 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 the change. made in April 2007 to sounding only the low kme of the train horn for passive crossings between 07:00 hours and 23:00 hours. RSSB should: a. identify any additional data that should be captured within SMIS from accidents and near-miss incidents to inform future safety decision-making , ,
Page3 of8

4796842

ANNEX

. about level crossings and make the necessary arrangements for that data to be collected by duty holders; and . b. using the data obtained from implementing part a of this recommendation and any further intelligence contained within SMIS or oth.er sourpes', enhance its current approach to reviewing the impact of the change to sounding only the low tone of the warning horn for whistle boards at level crossings between 07:00 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 get captured in SM/S is whether or not a specific level crossing is .fitted with a whistle board. ' Discussions with Network Rail indicate that they are improving the asset information for each level crossing in the context of th~ All LeverCrossings Risk Model (ALCRM) which could be made available tQ RSSB . ' .
.

RSSB will therefore work with Network Rail to ensure it is p6ssible tp link the SMIS level crossing locations with the location descriptions in the ALCRM such that SMIS incident data can be linked to specific locations and asset features ... It is anticipated that tMs work will be completed by June.2p13.

Partb
Once the Iinkage.between SMIS and ALCRM locations. ha,s,been mad~ it will be possible to monitor near miss and accident rates at level crossings with and 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 the incident 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 before the train horns rule. change in 2007 because of the availability of reliable asset data going back that far.
.j ~

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 wrote to 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 each level crossing-a unique identification code which wilrenabfe SMIS locations and localion information in the ALCRM lo be linked. Once this is done RSSB will be able to monitor near miss rates at the level crossings with and without
Page40f8
4796842

"

ANNEX

whistle boards on an on~going basis. The whistle board status will only reflect the 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 the total near miss reports occurring on the level crossings most likely to be fitted with whistle boards has remained fairly consistent. RSSB also know that the number of pedestrian fatalities at level crossings has fallen from 10 in 2008/09 to 4 in 2011/12. RSSB feel that it is very unlikely that there has been a significant increase in either the near misses or the risk at level crossings with whistle boards since 2007 .. However, once Network Rail has completed the level crossing census work RSSB should be able to asses~ the near miss data for level orossings with and without whistle boards for SMIS records going back to 2002, but only on the basis of the current census data. The results will therefore only be approximate as RSSB will not know if whistle boards have been added or removed prior to the census ... RSSB anticipate that the analysis wi/Jbe possible by the end of March 2013 depending on when the Network Rail census data is available.

ORR Decision
8.. After reviewing information received from Network Rail, ORR has concluded that, in accordance with the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005, Network Rail has: taken the recommendation into consideration; and

is taking action to implement it. - ORR to update RAIB by end

c:f

Status: In progress

June 2013

Recommendation 3
The intent of this recommendation is for Network Rail to undertake a project to develop and implement a national approach [0 the location and marking of decision points and the measuring of sighting distanc~s at levei crossings. This work should be expedited and undertaken as a discrete exercise rather than as part of the fhree"yearly crossing risk assessment cycle and take account of the emerg~ng findings from RSSB research project. T-984 'Research into the causes of 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 user worked crossing used by pedestrians; marking and signing the optimum decision point <;1t each crossing;

Page5 of8 4796842

ANNEX

using that decision point in estimates of sighting distance at footpath and other crossings; and briefing staff involved in crossing risk assessment with regard to the approach. When addressing .issues in relation to the marking of decision points, Network Rail should liaise with RSSB on emerging findings from research project T984 'Research into the causes of pedestrian accidents at level crossings and potential solutions'r and give consideration to the need to draw upon relevant elements of that research project to inform the development of the national approach. In this context RSSB should prioritise those elements of research project T984 that deal specifically with the marking of decision points, so that they are completed at an early stage in the programme. Once the approach . has been developed, Network Rail should implement a programme to review and 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 Standards Board and members of the team are part of the steering group for Project T984. Initial nndings relating specifically to decision points are expected by April-2013. The scope of the research also involves investigation into both the concept andffrst principles ofdecisfon points. The project will inform future plansl guidance 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 relevant timescales depending on the interim results in April 2013. ORR Decision 10. After reviewing information received from Network Rail, ORR has concluded that, in accordance with the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) 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 of June 2013

Recommendation 4
The intent of this recommendation is for First Great Western to propose changes to Railway Group Standards so that an objective train horn testing regime is mandated after a train has been involved in cerlain types of accident or incident.

Page6of8 4796842

ANNEX

First Great Western should make a proposal to RSSB to modify relevant Railway Group Standards to mandate the requirement to test train horns in an objective manner when a train has been involved in any accident or incident involving 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 recommendation

11. First Great Western in its initial response on 26 September 2012 advised that:

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

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

ORR Decision
12. After reviewing information received from Network Rail, ORR has concluded that, in accordance with the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005, Network Rail has: taken the recommendation into consideration; and

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 have reported in which case we will write again to RJ\IB.

Recommendation 5
The intent of this recommendation is for Network Rail to conduct a network-wide project to optimise warnings for pedestrians at level crossings equipped with whistfe boards, taking account of emerging technology and the ability to generate local warnings audibly or visually. Network Rail should conduct a review of the arrangements for providing warnings for pedestrians at level crossings currently equipped with whistle boards. The review should address: a. the costs and benefits at each crossing of providing audible or visual warnings at the crossing itself rather than by approaching trains (taking account of the possibility of the significantly reduced costs of visual warnings referred to in paragraph 120); and b. at crossings where whistle boards will remain, whether the position of the board at each crossing has been optimised taking account of all relevant local factprs including (but not limited to) prevailing wind, local topography, sources
Page7of8

4796842

. ANNEX

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

Details of steps taken or being taken to implement the recommendation

13. Network Rail in its initial response on 6 September 2012 advised that: will be actioned via This recommendation

a phased approach.

Phase one will be to develop a cost effective method of providing a visual and/or audible warning at level crossings. Phase one is necessary as current costs 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 for deployment 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 them
G.

when no action is required due "to there being no business case or when the position of whistle boards is already optimised.

Timesca/e for phase

1 and 2 is 13 months

(31st October 2013)

The third and final phase is works delivery and implementation. At this stage with no remit provided until phase one is .complete, a timesca/e of 31st March 2014 is only indicative. A project plan and further information will be provided once development funding has been agreed.

Phase one and two Gan be run concurrently but phase three would need to
be

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 and Reporting) 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 the recommendation .. " , .' , , ' '
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 the information above is inaccurate.

Page 8 of8

4796842

Appendix 8
Cornwall Counoil'Contact Directory Environment Service ~.Countryside Acc6ssTeam

LMt printed 30/01/20131Q:21:00

lIST OF STATUTORY UNOERTAKI.;RS TO BE ANNEXED TP REQLJEST FORM FOR RAIL CROSSING ORDER (HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 Section

118A and Section 119A)

PRODUCED BY C9RNWALL COUNCIL COUNTYSIDE ACCESS TEAM DETAILS CORRECT ENVIRONMENT SERVI,CE -

AT 30 JANUARY 2013

8T A TUTORY UNDEgr AKER TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRELlM , RAIL CROSSING ORDER BT Openrea.ch NatiorialNotice HElhclling Centre,

PP3\NW1~ Teleconi House

Trinity Street Hanley Stoke~orr- Trent

ST15ND
STATUTORY UNDERTAKER TELEOOMMUNIGA TIONS PRELlM RAIL CROSSING ORDER

Virgin Media National Plant Enquiries Tepm SoimitarP.;irk Collrtald Road Basildon Essex 8813 1ND

STATUTORY UNDERTAKER GAS DISTRIBUTION PREUM RAIL CROSSING ORDER

Wales and West Utilities Spooner Close C~ltic Sprihgs CoeqkernoW Newport

NP10 8FZ

Page 1012

Cornwall Council- Environment Service - Countrysid~ Access Team Contact Directory Last printed30/0112013tO:21 :00 STATUTORY UNDERTAKER

ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION PRELlM RAIL CROSSING ORDER

Western Power Distribution SW Plc Records Centre. Lostwlthle! Road. Bodmin Cornwall

PL31 1DE
STATUTORY UNDERTAKER

WATER SUPPLY ANDSEWERAC3E PREUM RAIL CROSSING ORDER

SouthWest Water
Records Centre Peninsula House Rydon Lane Exeter Devon

EX27HR

END OF LIST

Page 2 of2

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

...

-----

..

-.-

Appendix C - Other Information There was no public way at this location when the railway was constructed in1850. In 1892 powers were obtained to acquire lands on the northern side of the railway and a track at that time was referred as 'Occupation Road'. Again, there was no mention of any public status. Our records suggest the crossing became used by local fishermen to gain access to and from the foreshore with their boats and presumably, members of the public taking access to the foreshore. Following exohanges of correspondence with the Council in 1960, the occupational use had ceased but the Railway Company conceded public rights had been acquired. The crossing was reconfigured with wicket gates and a pedestrian deck in November 1961 and thereafter it has been maintained as a public footpath crossing. A fatality occurred in 1972 which first raised the safety issues. In October 1991 correspondence with the Council highlighted that increased seasonal use 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 in situ. Other discussions have ensued relating to possible closure on safety grounds, more recently in September 2007 at the 'Road/Rail Partnership Meetings' but it is now the change in Highway legislation which enables a formal application for closure to be submitted on the grounds of promoting publip safety.