IRSE News 150 Nov 09.pdf

FEEDBACK
Dear Editors
Hixon Level Crossing Accident, 6 January 1968
After this terrible accident, Ted Rogers remitted various units
within the BRB S&T Dept to undertake activities associated with
its aftermath. One item was the need to respond to a large
amount of correspondence from the public. This task fell to
Basil Grose, with me as his assistant.
The mail broadly divided into three types. These were:
Hateful / obscene – “You murdering swine…” etc;
Proposed solutions, worthy of follow-up;
Proposed solutions not worthy of follow-up.
We quickly set up a reply strategy and prepared a small number
of “standard replies” which covered the large majority of the
letters.
The point of this “memoir” is to pass on some of the more
bizarre suggestions Basil and I had to handle. After such a
ghastly accident there was very little to be light-hearted about,
but in retrospect, it seems worth circulating these ideas, not
only in the context of Hixon, but as an insight to the thinking
processes of some people.
Older members may recall the need for BR to make savings
in the 1960s/70s, as well as the heart-searching about the
introduction of automatic level crossings (aimed at substantially
reducing the number of crossing keepers, often on a 3-shift
basis). The heart-searching arose from the fact that, for efficient
operation, many trains would be inside their braking point if a
crossing were obstructed, as the crossings had no signal
protection.
Thus the system finally adopted provided roadside
telephones intended for road users if they had an unusual or
slow load. The rest, as they say, is history. (You may like to look
at www.railwaysarchive.co.uk, a goldmine of information
including the full Hixon Inquiry report.)
SOME PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS.
(On reading my first draft of this, both Basil Grose and Tom
Craig very kindly added to my own memories. This is a
compilation of all our experiences.)
Many of these introduced ideas that had been considered
but abandoned, while others failed to appreciate the lack of
braking distance available. These were replied to with a brief,
polite explanation why the suggestion was not practical
A few showed some promise, and Basil visited these writers
at their homes for further discussion, but in the end, none was
found worth development. However, a very small number
showed such vivid imagination coupled with a complete lack of
knowledge of the laws of physics that they became truly
memorable. It is these I would like to share with you.
Evasion
This proposal involved fitting a left-handed turnout “just before
the crossing” that, in the event of a train approaching it while
obstructed, would “throw to reverse” and divert the train onto a
length of circular track, thus allowing it to go round and round
until it stopped.
Extra braking
Here, the approaches to the crossing would be fitted “for a
couple of hundred yards” with Dowty retarders (as often used in
hump marshalling yards at the time). Under normal conditions, the
retarders are free to be depressed as wheels pass over them. But
if a crossing is detected as obstructed on the approach of a train,
hydraulic fluid at high pressure is applied to the retarders, having
a powerful braking effect on the train.
We did not conduct any noise tests on trains passing over
Dowty units, either relaxed or under pressure, but sat pondering
the effects on nearby housing!
Extreme braking
It was proposed a large hook be installed in the 4-foot “at a
suitable distance from the crossing” and in the event of the
crossing being obstructed, it would rise up and catch the leading
axle of the train. The writer did not explain what material would
connect the hook to the ground. We supposed it must have been
based on aircraft carrier arresters. Not too good for coffee or
soup containers.
Improved visibility
This required a “trip” in the track some distance before the
crossing, and all traction units to be fitted with large magnifying
glasses which swung down in front of the driver on passing over
the “trip”, so that he could see if the crossing was clear or not.
The proposer did not mention the need to straighten the railway
for a sufficient distance to ensure a clear view of the crossing,
where necessary. (Basil and I wondered whether a bible rather
than a mirror might be more appropriate.)
Preventing obstructions
We received three suggestions in this category. The first would
have put quite a design load on the Highways Engineer as it
involved revising the roadway surface so that it ran sharply
downhill in both directions. We tried drawing this, and ended up
with something not unlike a sketch by Escher!
The second suggestion had the crossing’s roadway fitted with
rollers, normally locked, but set free during the approach of a
train. We presumed the intention was to allow a vehicle on the
crossing to be pushed clear. However, since the pusher’s feet
would also be on the (now free) rollers, the effort would be
frustrated.
Finally, something akin to a short, wide travelator was offered.
This appeared to run continuously, so that any vehicle becoming
“stationary” on the crossing would automatically be carried clear.
No further technical details were included, so we were left to
consider how the five or more sections were to be connected or
driven to take account of the gaps needed at each rail.
Maintenance and power consumption both seemed rather
expensive.
Train detection
This suggestion concerned itself only with detecting trains, with
no proposals as to what to do with the information. We did not
pursue it since track circuits and treadles were readily available to
us. The “invention” though “was a naval secret” which turned out
to be detection of the heat of a ship’s funnel. This was also the
year of the demise of steam traction on BR
An odd-ball
We never really found out why this letter was directed to us, as it
had nothing to do with level crossings, but was about passenger
safety. The handwriting indicated it was possibly from a frail,
elderly lady.
40
IRSE NEWS | ISSUE 150 | NOVEMBER 2009