ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 2 of 26

Transcription

1

2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Background Description of Site Level Crossing Details Environment Traffic Census Incident History Current Risks Future Development Road Rail Projected Risks Option Selection Closure Renewal of Crossing in Current Form MCB-CCTV MCB-OD AHB Recommended Option MCB-OD Mitigation Required Additional Controls considered but dismissed Additional Controls that should be considered Conclusion ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 2 of 26

3

4 2. Description of Site 2.1 Level Crossing Details Photograph 1: Looking West (in Up Direction) Photograph 2: Looking East (in Down Direction) Photograph 3: Facing South (Y Road Approach) Photograph 4: Facing North (Z Road Approach) Photos taken August 2012 CROSSING NAME CROSSING TYPE STRATEGIC ROUTE Plumpton Level Crossing MGW Sussex NETWORK RAIL LINE OF ROUTE SO590, Seq. 002 ENGINEERS LINE REFERENCE MILEAGE KJE1 44 miles 46 chains OS GRID REFERENCE TQ POST CODE ROAD NAME LOCAL AUTHORITY SUPERVISING SIGNAL BOX ELECTRIFICATION (TYPE) NUMBER OF RUNNING LINES MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE LINE SPEED BN7 3ED Unclassified Public Road, Station Road / Plumpton Lane East Sussex County Council Three Bridges ASC (T) / Plumpton Gate Box 750V DC Third Rail (Brighton ECR) Two 90mph Up and Down ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 4 of 26

5

6 Y Road Approach The following are encountered when approaching from the South along Plumpton Lane: Plumpton Village at approximately 3km away. Start of dashed central white lining at 185m away. Signage at 174m (YN) / (YO), Traffic Sign Regulations (TSR) above Plumpton Green, please drive carefully with speed repeated on high contrast antiskid road surface. TSR 671 National Speed Limit on reverse. See Photograph 5 Below. SLOW marked on road at 163m away. Signage at 148m away (YN) / (YO), TSR 770. See Photograph 6 Below. Start of vehicular entrance to Plumpton Racecourse (YN) at 41m away. End of vehicular entrance to Plumpton Racecourse (YN) at 24m away. Entrance to two residential properties (YO) at 22m away. Start of central Double White Lines at 17m away. Pedestrian access gate to signal box at 12m away (YO). Stop Line at 11m away (YN). Pedestrian access to Platform 1 and residential property at 7m away (YN). Crossing gates at 6m away. Centre of Level Crossing at 0m. The Y approach is a narrow single carriageway road with passing places. However for the 250m leading up to Plumpton Level Crossing, the road widens to approximately 6.5m allowing ample space for vehicles to pass each other. As the road nears the crossing there are no kerb lines or edge of carriageway markings; this may cause confusion. There is a pinch point of only 4.85m width adjacent to Plumpton Signal Box, then the road widens to 7.5m over the crossing. Dashed road centreline markings start 185m before the crossing; changing to double white lines 17m from the crossing. The approach is predominantly rural with occasional residential properties; there are hedges on both sides and frequent larger trees. The road consists of consecutive sweeping curves, this combined with the foliage flanking the roadway results in the late sighting of the Level Crossing. There are no pedestrian footways provided. There is minimal signage for the Level Crossing, but those that are present are clearly visible (although the signage at 174m may distract drivers). No RTLs are provided. Photograph 5: Signage at 174m Photograph 6: 149m Z Road Approach The following are encountered when approaching from the North along Station Road: Station Road leaves South Road approx 2km away. Also Signage TSR 622.1A 7.5T above Except for access (ZN and ZO). Start of residential properties at 1.2km away. The winning Post Pub with space for 5 cars at 350m away (ZN). Primary school at 290m away (ZN). Signage TSR 770 (ZN and ZO); with temporary flood warning TSR 554 on reverse (ZN) at 144m away. See Photograph 7 below. Barnfield adjoins Station Road at 90m away (ZN), providing access to approx 10 residential properties ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 6 of 26

7 Station Close adjoins Station Road at 62m away (ZO), providing access to approx 10 properties and Station Car Park. Signage at 45m away (ZO) TSR repeater. Access to King George V Playing fields and sports pavilion at 25m away (ZN). Mud track providing access to Plumpton Tennis Club at 22m away (ZN). Bus stop at 17m away (ZN). See Photograph 8 below. Stop line at 8m away (ZN). Crossing gates at 6m away. Centre of Level Crossing at 0m. The Z approach road is a single carriageway road. For the 250m leading up to Plumpton Level Crossing, the road is approximately 6.5m wide allowing for ample space for vehicles to pass each other. The road widens to 7.5m over the crossing. The proximity of the grass verges on the approach and the pinch point on the crossing exit give the impression of a narrower road. No road markings are present on the road except at junctions with residential roads where give way lines are provided. The Z approach road has a sharp bend on the crossing itself. This may lead to vehicles straying over the double white lines. The approach is rural, becoming residential 1.2km prior to the crossing. There are hedges and trees of varying size maintained by local homeowners. The road is predominantly straight with a sweeping S curve just prior to the level crossing which limits early sighting of the crossing. Pedestrian Footways are provided on both sides of the road within 350m of the crossing stopping approximately 25m (ZN) and 50m (ZO) prior to the crossing. There is minimal signage for the Level Crossing, but those that are present are clearly visible. No RTLs are provided. Photograph 7: Signage at 144m (ZN) Photograph 8: Bus 17m (ZN) ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 7 of 26

8 b) Properties, Businesses and Amenities The surrounding area to the North is predominantly low density residential detached housing, with two pubs within close proximity of the Level Crossing. The surrounding area to the South comprises open fields with intermittent residential properties. In the YN corner, almost immediately adjacent to the crossing is a vehicular entrance to Plumpton Racecourse. This does not appear to be regularly used, however it is one of two primary vehicle entrances to the race course, and so will be heavily trafficked on race days (circa twelve race days per annum). In addition, there is evidence of vehicles using the verge and space in front of the gates for parking and then walking into the site via the pedestrian entrance. Adjacent to the Level Crossing on the Z approach is King George V playing fields and sports pavilion. The outdoor facilities include a children s play area, cricket pitch, football pitch and basketball court, along with the provision of the sports pavilion with two large halls and accompanying welfare facilities. There are several sports clubs whom play in competitive leagues which utilise the venue (2 cricket teams, 1 football team); this means that there are regularly individuals attending the local area who may not be familiar with the nearby level Crossing. Additionally the Plumpton Tennis Club is accessed via the dirt track adjacent to the Level Crossing, however, this is primarily used by regulars who would be (or become) familiar with the Level Crossing. Plumpton station building and car parking facilities are located in the ZO corner of the crossing. There are no other businesses or amenities in the vicinity of the Level Crossing. c) Rail Approach and Usage The KJE1 Line is a twin track line with third rail electrification. Linespeed is 90mph on both the Up and Down Lewes. There are no speed changes within 2 miles of the Level Crossing in the Down direction however the Up Lewes reduces to 75mph approximately 1 ½ miles beyond the Level Crossing. There are several other Level Crossings in close proximity to Plumpton Level Crossing: 1 mile 50 chains in the Up direction is Spatham Lane Automatic Half Barrier (AHB) Level Crossing providing a through route from the edge of Ditchling via Ditchling Common Industrial Estate to the edge of Burgess Hill 23 chains in the Up direction is Ridden s Lane User Worked Crossing (UWC) Level Crossing providing vehicular access to one property south of the crossing. 1 mile 6 chains in the Down direction is East Chiltington UWC Level Crossing providing pedestrians using local footpaths a method of crossing. 1 mile 42 chains in the Down direction is Kemps Farm UWC Level Crossing providing pedestrians using local footpaths a method of crossing. According to the timetabling information available on the National Rail website: Monday to Friday there are 69 scheduled passenger services passing over the Level Crossing; 33 trains heading on the Up Lewes and 36 on the Down Lewes. These services are scheduled to run between 05:30hrs and 01:15hrs. 44 trains are scheduled to stop at Plumpton station with 25 trains passing though. Saturday has a slightly altered service with 64 scheduled passenger services passing over the Level Crossing; 31 trains heading on the Up Lewes and 33 on the Down Lewes. These services are scheduled to run between 05:30hrs and 01:15hrs. 29 trains are scheduled to stop at Plumpton station with 35 trains passing though. There is a reduced service of 31 passenger trains on Sundays, 15 trains heading on the Up Lewes and 16 on the Down Lewes. These services are scheduled to run between 07:00hrs and 01:15hrs. All trains except for 1 are scheduled to stop at Plumpton station. The only freight anticipated to use the lines are three de-icers. The above is reflected in the traffic census data in Section ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 8 of 26

9

10 Road Speed Data An Automatic Road Speed Survey was carried out by Nationwide Data Collection between Friday 11 th May and Thursday 17 th May 2012, with equipment set up approximately 150m prior to the Level Crossing on the Y and Z approaches. The findings are summarized below: Y approach [30mph posted limit]: Percentage exceeding Posted speed limit = 69.6% # Fastest recorded speed = 55-60mph Free Flowing Mean speed = 32.8mph Free Flowing 85 percentile = 38.0mph Z approach [30mph posted limit]: Percentage exceeding Posted speed limit = 20.6% Fastest recorded speed = 50-55mph Free Flowing Mean speed = 26.2mph Free Flowing 85 percentile = 30.9mph # The majority of motorists exceed the speed limit as they pass the Y approach warning signs; presumably because they are decelerating and have only just passed the 30mph signs. Given this fact, and the road curvature, it is likely that the vehicles will have reduced speed before encountering the crossing. ORR Usage Statistics Based on the traffic census information and in accordance with ORR guidance: The Level Crossing is Vehicle Category 1, with a Traffic Moment of 138,000 (ie. high ). The Level Crossing is Pedestrian Category C, with a TPV value of 54 (ie. low ) 2.4 Incident History Data provided by Network Rail indicates that there are several incidents of vehicles impacting the Level Crossing gates. Although there were no reported cases in the last 5 years, there were 3 incidents in the 5 years prior to this. Additionally, there have been sixteen mechanical failures of the equipment at the Level Crossing in the last 5 years with additional failures recorded prior to this. However the 9 day traffic survey from May 2012 notes that there were three separate occasions where the signaller had to manually open the gates from the carriageway; giving the impression that failure is such a regular occurrence it often goes unreported. Previous incidents involving level crossings of this type where the gate mechanism failed, causing a train to strike the gates include Scopwick MGW in Kirkby Green, Lincolnshire in April 2008, and Rowston MCG Level Crossing (London North Eastern) in November The Rowston incident resulted in one major injury to a passenger. There have been only four road traffic accidents recorded for the nearby highway network in the last six years; three resulting in slight damage meaning no serious injuries occurred, however one incident resulted in serious injuries where the two casualties required hospitalisation. All four incidents took place within 500m of the crossing on the Z approach, but may be unrelated to the crossing. Vandalism does not appear to be an issue at this Level Crossing, however, nearby crossings have reported damage to lineside phones, namely Riddens Lane, East Chiltington and Wickham Level Crossings. 2.5 Current Risks Plumpton (MGW) level crossing was risk assessed on the 30 th April 2012 in accordance with the approved company standards and processes. The collected data set derived (inclusive of a quick census) was fully evaluated by the All Level Crossing Risk Model (ALCRM) ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 10 of 26

11 The ALCRM evaluation for Plumpton level crossing is an individual risk score of G and a collective risk score of 4 based upon the collection data set defined above; G4. *The ALCRM calculates risk within two categories; individual and collective risk. Individual risk is the risk to an individual user of the crossing and the latter collective risk encompasses the risk to the individual, the risk to the train Driver, passengers on board the train, the business and industry reputational damage for example. The individual risk is scored A to M with A being the highest individual risk and the collective risk is scored 1 to 13 with 1 being the highest collective risk. The highest overall risk is therefore A1 and the lowest overall risk is therefore M13. The existing Fatalities and Weighted Injuries (FWI) is The key risk drivers identified by the toolset and which contribute toward this risk score are: frequent trains, crossing near station and large number of users. It should be noted that the quick census dated 30 th April 2012 predicted 1080 vehicles per day, whereas the 9-day census shows an average closer to 1400 per day. The key drivers identified by Network Rail for renewal of the crossing are: The level crossing is non compliant to current signalling standards i.e. the gates are not interlocked with the signalling. The current type of crossing is not appropriate according to Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) guidance for crossings where the traffic moment is high. Life expired and obsolete gates and operating mechanism becoming increasingly unreliable. Maintenance becoming unsupportable due to lengthy lead times and lack of available spares / specialist mechanical knowledge. Life expired REB and control circuitry. Atkins considers the Key Risks relating to Plumpton Level Crossing are: The level crossing is non compliant to current signalling standards i.e. the gates are not interlocked with the signalling. The ORR level crossing guidance document 7, Table 1 recommends that for gated crossings, the traffic moment and actual daily road vehicle usage should be low. For Plumpton the traffic moment is high. The recommendation is presumably based on ergonomic / workload considerations. Repeated Wrong Side Failures of road stops. Likely failure of the crossing mechanism if the crossing is not renewed. Other similar crossings, namely Scopwick MGW Level Crossing and Rowston MCG Level Crossing have experienced such incidents, whereby a gate failure caused a train to strike the gates. Risk to signaller during periods of malfunction and manual operation of the gates. Lack of warning to motorists when gates close. The individual headings below provide further details of current risks. a) Pedestrian Usage Under the current arrangements, there is no designated pedestrian walkway over the Level Crossing. Therefore, any pedestrians travelling along Station Road/Plumpton Lane are required to walk within the carriageway, potentially clashing with vehicular traffic. A pedestrian footbridge is provided at the far end of the adjacent station platforms for passengers required to change platforms. However, this footbridge is too far from the crossing to be readily used by non passengers. Currently, the Level Crossing is locally operated from the adjacent Plumpton Gate Box; this means that any prone or stricken pedestrians on the Crossing should be spotted by the Signaller prior to the gates being closed to allow the trains to pass. There are no trespass guards provided, however the gated nature of the Level Crossing limits the risk of pedestrians walking onto the railway. Additionally, the presence of the Station and Gate Box in close proximity to the Level Crossing is likely to discourage any trespass or vandalism. The location of the crossing adjacent to Plumpton Racecourse means that at times there is an increase in groups of pedestrians using the crossing. As part of a group there is an increased chance of an individual taking additional risks in traversing the Level Crossing. This gives a current risk to pedestrians using the crossing as Low. In addition, the risk of trespass and vandalism is also considered as low ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 11 of 26

12 b) Red Running Traffic usage is high and the measured 85 th percentile road speed is greater than the posted 30mph limit. There are no RTLs provided at the Level Crossing so the only indication for approaching motorists of an impending road closure is the movement of the Level Crossing gates. Any attempt to red run the Level Crossing poses a serious risk to the gates and in times of mechanical failure also to the signaller who would be present in the roadway. The level crossing gates are not proved (detected) closed in the signalling system allowing the possibility of the gates swinging open and not replacing the protecting signals to danger (ie. not stopping trains). Thus, the greatest risk from any red running is a road-rail vehicular incident. Therefore the risk associated with the act of red running at Plumpton Level Crossing is considered to be moderate/high. c) Turning onto the Railway Plumpton Level Crossing is gated and therefore the railway line is blocked by gates when the road is open to vehicular. There are access roads in close proximity to the Level Crossing on both sides, however, the presence of the protecting gates means that it is highly unlikely that a motorist anticipating a junction could mistakenly drive onto the railway. Therefore the risks associated with motorists mistakenly turning onto the railway are considered to be very low. d) Road Traffic Light and Warning Signage Sighting Advanced warning signs are visible on both approaches. These are placed in the Nearside verge and repeated in the Offside verge. The Z approach signs are positioned too far from the crossing for the 85% road speed, and should be positioned approximately 80m closer to the crossing to make the warning more immediate / meaningful. The Y approach crossing warning signs follow immediately behind other signage which may distract motorists. There are no RTLs provided at Plumpton Level Crossing so the only indicator for motorists of an impending road closure is when the gates begin to close. When the gates are closed they arguably provide a less visible warning than a modern lifting barrier which has retroreflective strips and LED boom lights. Failure of motorists to adequately identify the presence of the Level Crossing (mainly due to the lack of RTLs) could result in equipment damage or even derailment/major fatality. There is historic evidence to suggest that users have difficulty identifying the Level Crossing and as such the sighting of warning signage and lack of RTLs is inadequate, and therefore the risk is considered to be high. e) Blocking Back During the 9 day traffic survey only three periods of 15 minutes were observed in which any blocking back occurred. The survey does not specify how many instances occurred during these 15 minute windows. These all occurred on Sunday 13 th May 2012, coinciding with increased traffic flows caused by people travelling to and from the event at Plumpton Racecourse. Plumpton Racecourse currently only hosts a small number of large scale events, circa 12 per annum. The rest of the time there is no evidence that blocking back occurs. The current MGW system protects users of the crossing as the passage of trains is prevented by the blocking back. However, this leaves an opportunity for non-compliance to cause delays to train services. Overall, the risks associated with blocking back over Plumpton Level Crossing are considered to be moderate. f) Parking There are no restrictions (yellow lines or similar) on either of the approach roads to prevent parking. Nearby residential properties have space to accommodate the off-road parking of residential vehicles. Currently, there is a single (unmarked) designated Network Rail parking space adjacent to the signal box with signage; for use by the gate keeper. There is no allowance for parking of railway maintenance vehicles ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 12 of 26

13 There is evidence of vehicles parking adjacent to the Level Crossing on the grass verge of Plumpton Lane for quick access to Plumpton Racecourse. Vehicles parked here reduce the visibility of the crossing. Reportedly there is insufficient space in the adjacent Plumpton Station car park, leading to on-road parking in the vicinity. At peak commute times, parking around the crossing could become a risk. Overall, it is considered the risks associated with vehicles parking near the Level Crossing are moderate/high. g) Grounding There are no warning signs or evidence that grounding is currently an issue at Plumpton Level Crossing. The MGW set-up alleviates the risks associated with a vehicle becoming grounded on the Level Crossing as no train is able to pass while a vehicle prevents the closing of the gates. As such the risks associated with the grounding of vehicles on Plumpton Level Crossing are considered to be very low. h) Road Width and Alignment The road widths on both approaches close to the crossing allow for opportunities for vehicles to pass each other easily. The reverse curves on both approaches decrease visibility of signage and the crossing; and encourage drivers to cut the corners / stray over the double white lines. The pinch point may surprise drivers who are not familiar with the crossing and lead to vehicular incidents over the crossing or just off the crossing. As speeding is a known issue on both approaches, the sub standard sighting provides a risk to motorists and the signaller in times of mechanical failure. The risks associated with road alignment are considered to be high. j) Gates Hit by Road Vehicles Data provided by Network Rail indicates that there are several incidents of vehicles impacting the Level Crossing gates. Although there were no reported cases in the last 5 years, there were 3 incidents in the 5 years prior to this. This is likely to be due to the sub standard signage and lack of warning that the gates are closing. Station Road / Plumpton Lane is included on East Sussex County Council s Primary gritting route for 2012/2013, helping to mitigate against vehicles skidding into the gates. Currently the risk associated with gates being impacted by road vehicles is considered to be high. Refer to Section 2.5k for discussion of gates being hit by a train. k) Failure of Crossing Mechanism The Gate Box dates from circa 1891 and the operating mechanism of the level crossing will be of a similar age (excepting replacement parts). The system uses a series of complicated gears and rods to allow the signaller to close the gates from inside Plumpton Gate Box. The majority of the mechanism is outside and therefore exposed to the elements, during times of cold weather the mechanism is known to freeze and cease up requiring the signaller to enter the carriageway to move the gates by hand. According to the records provided by Network Rail there has been an official report of a fault with the gates and/or mechanism on average 3 to 4 times a year over the last 5 years. However the 9 day traffic survey from May 2012 notes that there were three separate occasions where the signaller had to manually open the gates from the carriageway; giving the impression that failure is such a regular occurrence it often goes unreported. The workload can be considerable for the gate keeper during periods of malfunction, in particular when he is required to open and close the crossing gates himself. As there are very few wheeled gated crossings still in use, the spare parts and expertise required to carry out repairs are declining; resulting in the maintenance and emergency repair of the mechanism becoming ever more expensive and lengthy. It should be noted that the cast iron gate locks located in the centre of the road, whilst designed and installed when road traffic was light and infrequent, now present a risk due to the regular and heavy ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 13 of 26

14 traffic experienced today. The cast iron locks are prone to sudden failure due to the brittle nature of the material used, allowing the gates to encroach onto the railway. Mechanism failures will most likely result in train delays and inconvenience to road users; however the repeated Wrong Side Failure of the road stops may contribute towards a safety breach. Other similar crossings. for example Scopwick MGW Level Crossing in Kirkby Green, Lincolnshire, and Rowston MCG Level Crossing, have experienced such incidents, whereby a gate failure caused a train to strike the gates. The incident at Rowston resulted in one major injury to a passenger. At Plumpton a collision between train and gate becomes more likely due to the age and condition of the mechanism. Therefore the risk associated with the failure of the Level Crossing equipment is considered to be high. 3. Future Development 3.1 Road A search of planning applications was conducted for the nearby area using the Lewes District and South Downs National Park planning websites. Several applications were indentified, three of which were considered to be of note and are summarised below: LW/13/0077 Application received on 31/01/2013, Accepted 19/04/2013. Erection of single storey entrance building and associated works at Plumpton Racecourse, Ashurst Lane, Plumpton, East Sussex, BN7 3AL An additional small wood framed building used for Entrance, Welcoming, Checking Passes, Issuing tickets, etc. (taken from planning application form). In itself this application has no significant impact on Plumpton Level Crossing, however it does indicate an aspiration of the Plumpton Racecourse to expand and renew facilities. Direct consultation with the racecourse owners is advised to ensure any planned future applications not yet submitted would not affect the usage of the Level Crossing. LW/13/0085 Application received on 22/03/2013, Accepted 17/05/2013. Demolition of existing sports pavilion and erection of a sports pavilion at King George V Recreation Ground, Station Road, Plumpton Green, East Sussex, BN7 3DP A replacement of the existing sports pavilion, which is dilapidated. There are no proposed changes to the amount of parking provided. The internal floorspace is set to increase slightly from 310m 2 to 385m 2. As no usage changes are proposed for the pavilion there is currently no evidence suggesting that there will be any long term impact on usage of Plumpton Level Crossing. The improved quality may cause a minor increase in facilities usage, but this is likely to be minimal in comparison to the current usage. During construction there will be some local disruption / additional usage of the crossing. LW/13/0168 Application received on 06/03/2013, Decision pending (as of 24/06/2013). Erection of fourteen 1, 2 and 3-bedroom local needs affordable dwellings with associated parking and landscaping, and associated highway works to North Barnes Lane at Land East of Telephone Exchange, North Barnes Lane, Plumpton Green, East Sussex. The provision of 14 residences with parking for 24 road vehicles, located on North Barnes Road adjoining Station Road 350m away from the Level Crossing, adjacent to The Winning Post pub. The development includes provision of sighting improvements to the junction between North Barnes Road and Station Road allowing vehicles to traverse the junction safely. This development, if accepted, is likely to increase the usage of the Level Crossing by both road vehicles and pedestrians, and allow for vehicles to safely travel at higher speeds towards the Level Crossing. This increase is likely to be minimal and the distance away from the crossing means that the speed increase is likely to be low. However, provision for further developments of a similar nature should be made due to the permissive attitude of the Local Council towards further residential development. No other significant planning applications were identified ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 14 of 26

15 3.2 Rail No significant resignalling / linespeed improvement or other railway related projects have been identified which would change the current usage of Plumpton Level Crossing. The following level crossing works have been identified; however no impact is anticipated from these works: Berwick, Polegate, Wallsend, Level Crossings are to be converted to Manually Controlled Barrier crossings with Obstacle Detection (MCB-OD). Havensmouth and Hampden Park Level Crossings are to be converted to Manually Controlled Barrier crossings with Closer Circuit Television (MCB-CCTV). Hamsey and Spatham Level Crossing Renewals. 3.3 Projected Risks The future developments in the local area affect the risks associated with the crossing as follows: a) Pedestrian Usage The improvements to the King George V playing fields and pavilion and Plumpton Racecourse may increase pedestrian use of the Level Crossing. Both developments are for venues which host events, meaning that any associated increase in pedestrians is anticipated to be concentrated around the event start and finish times; additionally the majority of these new users would not be regular users of the crossing. The increase in pedestrian is likely to be minimal in comparison with the current usage. Therefore the risks associated with pedestrians at Plumpton Level Crossing are anticipated to continue to be low. b) Red Running No change in risk level anticipated. c) Turning onto the Railway No change in risk level anticipated provided trespass guards are in situ. d) Road Traffic Light and Warning Signage Sighting No change in risk anticipated, other than the minor increase in parking issues detailed in 3.3f below. e) Blocking Back The improvements to the community sports centre and Plumpton Racecourse are likely to increase vehicular use of the Level Crossing, with users from further afield utilising the improved facilities. As the improvements to the sports centre is likely to increase the number of visitors without the provision of additional parking, the risk of blocking back is therefore likely to increase. However, the overall risks associated with blocking back at Plumpton level Crossing are anticipated to continue to be moderate. f) Parking With the improvements to the nearby King George V playing fields and pavilion there is the possibility of increased vehicular usage of the site, without any additional parking being provided there is the likelihood that drivers unable to fit into the car park will park on the Station Road. This will both increase the chance of obscuring drivers views and create distractions resulting in an increased risk of drivers approaching the crossing missing warnings and causing an incident. Moderate/High risk. g) Grounding No change in risk level anticipated. h) Road Width No change in risk level anticipated. j) Gates Hit by Road Vehicles No change in risk level anticipated. k) Failure of Crossing Mechanism No change in risk level anticipated ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 15 of 26

16 4. Option Selection As part of the Risk Assessment process, Atkins gives comment on the renewal options; information which can inform and support the GRIP 3 Option Selection Process. This risk assessment report alone does not constitute an option selection study. Option considered Type Description Cost Implication Partial renewal MGW Renewal of individual components to provide life-extension to the Level Crossing, as a precursor to allow a closure or full renewal of the Level Crossing in the future. Full renewal in current form Full renewal in modern equivalent form Full renewal, change of crossing type MGW Renewal of gates and all control equipment on a like-for-like basis. MCB Renew as a four-barrier Manually Controlled Barrier type LC, directly viewed / controlled from Plumpton SB. (ie. like for like but with modern equipment). MCB-CCTV Renew as a four-barrier MCB-CCTV, controlled from Three Bridges MCB-OD Renew as a four-barrier MCB-OD, controlled from Three Bridges. Option Result? Justification Unknown Discounted Replacement parts are increasingly rare, with the majority of the equipment currently requiring replacement. Unknown Unknown (< 2.1M) Unknown (< 2.1M) Discounted Discounted MGW Crossings are not acceptable to ORR guidance for sites with high vehicular usage such as Plumpton. No road traffic light protection provided and whole life costs higher than other options. Majority of safety issues not addressed. MGW Crossings are not acceptable to ORR guidance for sites with high vehicular usage such as Plumpton. No road traffic light protection provided and whole life costs higher than other options. Road traffic light protection provided, but whole life costs higher than other options. Considered The current Level Crossing equipment is obsolete/life expired and therefore a full renewal is required. Improvement in ALCRM from G4 to H5 Improvement in FWI from to Road traffic light protection provided and whole life costs lower than existing. Circa 2.1M Recommended The current Level Crossing equipment is obsolete/life expired and therefore a full renewal is required. Improvement in ALCRM from G4 to H5 Improvement in FWI from to ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 16 of 26

17 Closure of Level Crossing, AHB Full renewal of all Level Crossing equipment as AHB Divert all traffic Divert vehicles and provide footbridge Replace by Under / Overbridge Close LC. Divert pedestrians via other existing paths. Divert road traffic via other existing routes Close LC. Provide footbridge for pedestrians. Divert road traffic via other existing routes Close LC by the provision of a newly constructed bridge under / over the railway. Less visually intrusive than CCTV. Less workload on Panel 5 of Three Bridges signal box, allowing more flexibility for future recontrol / resignalling projects, and reduces the risk of human error. Road traffic light protection provided and whole life costs lower than existing. Circa 1M Considered Both the pedestrian and vehicular usage is currently low enough to allow the use of an AHB. The cost of initial installation and the upkeep cost are lower than an MCB-CCTV or MCB-OD. Downgrade in ALCRM and FWI scores. Unsuitable site topography / usage and ORR reluctance to downgrade the crossing safety make this option non-preferred. Road traffic light protection provided and whole life costs lower than other options. Circa 0.3M Discounted Closure of the level crossing has been discounted, detailed reasoning is provided in section 4.1. Circa 1.5M Discounted Closure of the level crossing has been discounted, detailed reasoning is provided in section 4.1. Circa 1.5M+ Discounted Level topography and proximity of Gate Box and 16 Station Road make this option impractical ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 17 of 26

18 4.1 Closure The full closure of Plumpton Level Crossing would cause significant levels of disruption for local users, and visitors to the adjacent Plumpton Racecourse. There are alternative routes available to road users to reach their destination (approx 2 mile diversions along smaller rural roads), however these would significantly increase journey times and would become overly congested when events are taking place at the racecourse. Pedestrians would be able to utilise the station footbridge to traverse the railway, but this again entails a significant detour. A full closure is likely to be detrimental to the character of Plumpton, which is proud of the heritage status of its station, signal box and associated level crossing, as well as causing significant disruption to locals and visitors. Therefore a full closure is likely to be opposed by local businesses, the racecourse, and local residents. For the above reasons a full closure of Plumpton Level Crossing is discounted. A partial closure with vehicles diverted and a footbridge provided would cause a similar level of disruption as the full closure described above and is therefore discounted as a viable option. Bridging / Underpass The ideal solution would be the full closure of the level crossing while maintaining access for vehicles and pedestrians to freely cross the railway. To achieve this would require the provision of either an underpass or bridge. The level topography and proximity of both the signal box and 16 Station Road, make the installation of either a bridge or underpass difficult to implement. Even if it is possible to orientate a solution to fit in, the issue around the continued provision of access to local properties, the King George V playing fields and Plumpton Tennis Club would pose additional problems. Currently a culvert passes under the railway in close proximity to the Level Crossing which is likely to cause drainage issues for an underpass and require the careful design of any bridge foundation to ensure a stable bridge footing and maintaining the flow through the culvert. The visual impact of either solution would be significant and be detrimental to the heritage of the area. Construction of a by-pass and road bridge is considered too expensive. For these reasons it is considered that the installation of an underpass or bridge is unsuitable for Plumpton Level Crossing and therefore these solutions have been discounted. 4.2 Renewal of Crossing in Current Form Partial renewal of the crossing in its current form has been discounted as there is too much life expired equipment to qualify as partial renewal; and on-going failure of the equipment is no longer sustainable. A full renewal would therefore be required of all gates and control equipment. Full renewal in the current form would require significant input from specialist design, manufacture and installation. It is likely that full renewal will not resolve all reliability issues, and the majority of safety issues highlighted in Section 2.5 will remain unaddressed. The existing ALCRM score of G4 and FWI of would be unaltered by a like-for-like renewal. The crossing would have closing gates, thereby answering local objections. However, following ORR guidance, this form of protection is no longer appropriate for a functioning railway given the safety critical role, severity of failure, and the level of road / rail usage at Plumpton. Renewing the crossing in its current form would mean that Network Rail s National Operating Strategy would not be realised at this site. 4.3 MCB-CCTV This option would involve the removal of the crossing gates and associated control mechanisms to be replaced with a standard MCB-CCTV set up controlled from Panel 5 of Three Bridges Signal Box. This would include the installation of four barriers covering both sides of the carriageway along with an RTL in each corner to warn users of the impending lowering of the barriers, CCTV cameras would ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 18 of 26

19 be required to cover the whole crossing area between barriers. This would require one, possibly two CCTV masts. 40 Lux lighting levels would be required across the crossing surface for operation of the colour CCTV system, which may be disruptive to the immediately adjacent households. The nearside barriers can be set up to be manually or automatically lowered, with the offside barriers being actively lowered by a signaller after checking the CCTV to ensure the Level Crossing is clear. An MCB-CCTV Level Crossing is suitable for most situations dependent upon the workload of the signaller controlling the crossing (ie. an over busy signaller / CCTV operator would increase risks significantly). The Ergonomics NST Site Visit Notes dated 23 rd September 2009 concluded that Plumpton LC could be upgraded to an MCB-CCTV controlled from Panel 5 of Three Bridges with current staffing arrangements and no significant issues anticipated in the management of the crossing from a workload perspective. The proposal was for a one shot lowering feature and auto raise. The MCB-CCTV and MCB-OD level crossing options were risk assessed using the quick census data from 30 th April The collected data set derived was fully evaluated by the All Level Crossing Risk Model (ALCRM). The resulting ALCRM evaluation is an individual risk score of H and a collective risk score of 5 based upon the collection data set defined above; H5. The Fatalities and Weighted Injuries (FWI) is The key risk drivers were noted as crossing near station and large number of HGVs. This represents an improvement in safety over the current arrangements. a) Pedestrian Usage (See 2.5a and 3.3a above). The use of an MCB-CCTV system offers a similar level of safety for pedestrians compared to the current MGW system. There is a minor increased risk with the use of CCTV due to the possibility of poor image quality or blind spots. However, as the controller only has to worry about ensuring the crossing is clear, unlike the current signaller who also has to check for approaching cars, any increase in risk is minimal. The provision of footways on one or both sides of the roadway is recommended to provide segregation of pedestrians from road vehicles. Trespass guards should also be installed to replace the access restraint currently provided by the gates. Overall the current risk associated with pedestrian usage and vandalism will not be affected by the installation of an MCB-CCTV solution, and as such the risk remains low. b) Red Running (See 2.5b and 3.3b above). Currently any act of red running could seriously endanger the life of the attending Signaller as they are often required to enter the roadway due to mechanical failure. An MCB-CCTV System removes this risk and provides a similar level of protection in the event that vehicles fail to slow for RTLs and encroach onto the Level Crossing. The likelihood of deliberate acts of red light running may increase due to the absence of the attending Signaller. The provision of RTLs which are required with an MCB-CCTV system provide a greater warning to drivers when the Level Crossing is closing or closed and therefore reduces the chance of a driver being unable to stop in time and accidentally red running the Crossing. Overall the installation of an MCB-CCTV crossing will keep the likelihood of an incident of red light running largely the same, but decrease the consequences of any event. As such the overall risk associated with red running is considered to be moderate. c) Turning onto the Railway (See 2.5c and 3.3c above). Removal of the Level Crossing gates increases the risk of vehicles turning onto the railway. However there are no particular site conditions that would suggest that there is a high likelihood of vehicles turning on to the railway. Additionally gated Level Crossings providing full closure of the railway line are the exception rather than the norm, so this increase in risk should not preclude the use of a barrier system. An MCB-CCTV crossing in itself does not provide any direct protection against vehicles turning outside of the barrier cycle as the CCTV is not constantly monitored, however any vehicle turning onto the railway during the closure cycle should be identified by the signaller and trains stopped ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 19 of 26

20 Routine general improvements to the Level Crossing to reduce the risk of turning on to the railway should still be made comprising the addition of Cat s Eyes along the edge of the carriageway, renewal of road markings, installation of trespass guards and provision of footpaths on one or both sides of the roadway. Overall the risk associated with vehicles turning onto the railway is likely to slightly increase but is still considered to be low. d) Road Traffic Light and Warning Signage Sighting (See 2.5d and 3.3d above). There are currently no RTLs present, however if an MCB-CCTV system is implemented these would be required. Alignment of RTLs should be optimised for the Primary Y and Z approaches, additional Red Man Standing should be installed for the use of Pedestrians leaving Platform 1. A review of warning signage sighting should be undertaken at detailed design stage to determine if any improvements can be made to the advance warnings provided to approaching motorists; it is likely that an additional RTL or sign should be provided for vehicles leaving the King George V playing fields and the track from Plumpton Tennis Club. An MCB-CCTV system offers a similar level of protection to any vehicle failing to adequately sight RTLs and Warning Signage and encroach upon the Level Crossing. However the likelihood of this occurring will be significantly reduced due to the improved visual warnings. Under the current set-up, any drivers failing to adequately identify the Level Crossing could strike the Signaller if he is present in the roadway during the gate closing procedure. This risk would be removed by an MCB-CCTV system. With the installation of an MCB-CCTV the risk associated with poor sighting of RTLs and warning signage is reduced and considered to be low. e) Blocking Back (See 2.5e and 3.3e above). Blocking back is only considered to be an issue at Plumpton Level Crossing at specific times during Race day events at Plumpton Racecourse. An MCB-CCTV System provides a similar level of safety as compared to the current MGW set-up, with the advantage that queuing cars can be separated by a lowering barrier whereas currently the crossing is required to be completely clear prior to initiating any closing procedure. Simple and generic methods to reduce the occurrence of blocking back could also be considered comprising the addition of Keep Crossing Clear Warning Signage and Yellow Box Road markings. The CCTV operator can have discretion over the barrier lowering, allowing him prevent the barriers lowering onto stationary vehicles, and at the same time encourage vehicles to clear the crossing. Converting Plumpton Level Crossing to an MCB-CCTV crossing will slightly reduce the risk associated with blocking back and the overall risk is considered to be low. f) Parking (See 2.5f and 3.3f above). Parking near the Level Crossing is currently an issue at peak times, if changed to an MCB-CCTV system the parked vehicles could be liable to block RTLs and warning signs. Any vehicle failing to observe the warnings due to parked vehicles would then be at risk of red running the crossing or impacting with the lowered barriers. Consideration should be given to the sighting of RTLs and also to routine improvements such as the installation of double yellow lines either side of the Level Crossing to ensure the immediate approaches are kept clear, and provision of parking bays adjacent to the Racecourse gates to discourage ad-hoc parking occurring. Discussions will be undertaken with the local council to ascertain whether yellow lining could be implemented and monitored in the vicinity of the crossing. As an MCB-CCTV crossing provides some active protection to users who fail to observe warnings or are otherwise affected by parked vehicles is considered to be moderate ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 20 of 26

21 g) Grounding (See 2.5g and 3.3g above). Grounding is not considered a risk at Plumpton Level Crossing. On any rare occasion which a vehicle becomes grounded or otherwise stuck on the crossing, this should be identified by the signaller and any approaching trains halted. With the installation of an MCB-CCTV crossing there is no significant change in the risk either positively or negatively and is considered to stay very low. h) Road Width and Alignment (See 2.5h and 3.3h above). The reverse curves on the road approaches, together with the pinch point adjacent to the signal box present a road safety risk. Replacement of the crossing gates with lifting barriers allow the pinch point to be removed and road alignment smoothed. This may paradoxically encourage higher speeds over the crossing, as visibility and driving line will be improved. However, due to the removal of the pinch point and sharp bend, it is surmised that the likelihood of vehicles straying over the double white lines and encroaching onto oncoming vehicles will be greatly reduced, thus reducing the risks to the road users overall. As a standard upgrade the Level crossing should be widened to provide segregation of pedestrians on one, if not both, sides of the crossing. With the installation of the MCB-CCTV crossing (including road realignment) the risks are considered to be reduced to moderate. j) Barriers (or Gates) Hit by Road Vehicles (See 2.5j and 3.3j above). The use of an MCB-CCTV system removes the risk of having the Signaller enter the road to manually operate the gates during times of equipment failure. The inclusion of RTLs within an MCB-CCTV design allows for significantly better warning to drivers approaching the crossing compared to the current MGW set up. The risk is therefore reduced and is considered to be low. 4.4 MCB-OD This option would involve the removal of the crossing gates and associated control mechanisms to be replaced with a standard MCB-OD set up controlled from Panel 5 of Three Bridges Signal Box. This would include the installation of four barriers covering both sides of the carriageway along with an RTL in each corner to warn users of the impending lowering of the barriers. A Primary Obstacle Detector in one corner and an additional two Complementary Obstacle Detectors in the 6-foot either side of the crossing should ensure the full crossing area is covered within the scanning area. The near side barriers can be set up to be automatically lowered or have Barrier Protection Management (BPM) to reduce the chance of vehicular collision with lowering barriers, the offside barriers being lowered after the Obstacle detection has confirmed the Level Crossing is clear. The MCB-OD setup is less visually intrusive than an MCB-CCTV, as there is no need for a tall mast for the CCTV cameras. There is also no requirement for 40 Lux lighting which may disrupt adjacent households. During normal operation an MCB-OD crossing works automatically. There would be a slight increase in signaller workload at Panel 5 of Three Bridges Signal Box (eg. granting local control for maintenance; answering the non-pets telephones etc). However the demands are significantly less onerous than an MCB-CCTV crossing. Therefore the Ergonomics report referenced in Section 4.3 above would suggest that there is sufficient spare capacity at Panel 5 to accept the MCB-OD with current staffing arrangements. The less onerous requirements will also give more flexibility for future recontrol / resignalling projects. MCB-OD systems work in a very similar way to MCB-CCTV systems and therefore carry a similar level of risk. Only the variation in risk compared to those detailed in 4.3 above shall be stated below ATK-PL-CV-006 Plumpton Level Crossing Risk Assessment va03 Page 21 of 26