GS
Techy Peep works at the BBC if memory serves.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
fusionlad posted:
Are you two in the same primary school class?
Techy Peep works at the BBC if memory serves.
TP
Techy Peep works at the BBC if memory serves.
Excuse me for trying to be helpful. We only got the picture earlier today.
Not everyone is glued to their TV screens all day.
Techy Peep
Founding member
Gavin Scott posted:
fusionlad posted:
Are you two in the same primary school class?
Techy Peep works at the BBC if memory serves.
Excuse me for trying to be helpful. We only got the picture earlier today.
Not everyone is glued to their TV screens all day.
FU
Techy Peep works at the BBC if memory serves.
Excuse me for trying to be helpful. We only got the picture earlier today.
Not everyone is glued to their TV screens all day.
Apologies, the comment wasn't really aimed at you. But there have been some really stupid comments by NewsWatch in this thread, especially on the night of the crash.
fusionlad
Founding member
Techy Peep posted:
Gavin Scott posted:
fusionlad posted:
Are you two in the same primary school class?
Techy Peep works at the BBC if memory serves.
Excuse me for trying to be helpful. We only got the picture earlier today.
Not everyone is glued to their TV screens all day.
Apologies, the comment wasn't really aimed at you. But there have been some really stupid comments by NewsWatch in this thread, especially on the night of the crash.
IS
A camera will not stop such incidents from happening especially those done on purpose
Perhaps if someone is in a centre watching what the camera records then they can relay the fact that there is a car on the line to the driver in time.
So Network Rail employ hundreds of people to watch CCTV monitors for 20 hours a day and then when - once in a blue moon - someones car stops on the crossing, one of them phones the driver on the train which is hurtling towards the crossing at 90mph....!?
Buerkmania posted:
Quote:
A camera will not stop such incidents from happening especially those done on purpose
Perhaps if someone is in a centre watching what the camera records then they can relay the fact that there is a car on the line to the driver in time.
So Network Rail employ hundreds of people to watch CCTV monitors for 20 hours a day and then when - once in a blue moon - someones car stops on the crossing, one of them phones the driver on the train which is hurtling towards the crossing at 90mph....!?
BB
I've often wondered - since I was much younger in fact - why level crossing barriers open up rather than sideways. At many level crossings, I think it would be quite practical for a barrier to sweep round rather than rise.
So when a train approaches, the lights come on, traffic stops, and barriers on one side of the tracks swing around and block oncoming traffic and pedestrians, followed shortly thereafter by a corresponding action on the opposite side of the tracks. As the barriers swing around, they could theoretically also be used to check that the crossing area is clear. If for example a car was in the way, the barriers would not be able to close successfully, which could alert the nearest signal and crossing control centre, who would then be able to alert an oncoming train.
If the barriers successfully closed to block the road, the train would pass as normal and without incident. Once the train had safely passed, one side's barriers would re-open, swinging back around, and thus blocking one side of the tracks, shortly thereafter followed by the opposite side's. (There would need to be this short delay between the two sides' barriers operating to ensure that they don't collide in mid-operation, but the delay would not be long enough to allow a vehicle to dodge through without being "swept" by the barriers.) Thus when the road is blocked, the train can pass safely in the knowledge that the crossing has been checked (with the exception of a small area in the very centre of the crossing between the arcs of the barriers movements - this could theoretically be covered by a weight sensor of some sort to ensure that it's clear), and when the road is open to crossing traffic, the tracks are protected from cars driving on to them or drunken students falling to them.
Well, I thought it was a good idea anyway.
So when a train approaches, the lights come on, traffic stops, and barriers on one side of the tracks swing around and block oncoming traffic and pedestrians, followed shortly thereafter by a corresponding action on the opposite side of the tracks. As the barriers swing around, they could theoretically also be used to check that the crossing area is clear. If for example a car was in the way, the barriers would not be able to close successfully, which could alert the nearest signal and crossing control centre, who would then be able to alert an oncoming train.
If the barriers successfully closed to block the road, the train would pass as normal and without incident. Once the train had safely passed, one side's barriers would re-open, swinging back around, and thus blocking one side of the tracks, shortly thereafter followed by the opposite side's. (There would need to be this short delay between the two sides' barriers operating to ensure that they don't collide in mid-operation, but the delay would not be long enough to allow a vehicle to dodge through without being "swept" by the barriers.) Thus when the road is blocked, the train can pass safely in the knowledge that the crossing has been checked (with the exception of a small area in the very centre of the crossing between the arcs of the barriers movements - this could theoretically be covered by a weight sensor of some sort to ensure that it's clear), and when the road is open to crossing traffic, the tracks are protected from cars driving on to them or drunken students falling to them.
Well, I thought it was a good idea anyway.