Written evidence from the Heritage Railway Association (SLC 010)

Summary

• In principle, level crossings on the national network and on heritage lines should present a similar image and operation to lessen the risk of confusion by road users.
• Nonetheless, it should be borne in mind that the lower operating speeds and higher noise of trains on heritage railways reduce the risk of hazard to other crossing users.
• Anticipated Law Commission recommendations to repeal the Level Crossings Act 1983 and to extend the application of the general duty of care under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 are not supported.
• The cost of upgrading crossings to take account of local developments giving rise to increased road traffic should be borne by the highway authority or relevant developer.
• The Committee’s question 3 implies the existence of a national rail budget.   Heritage railways are privately funded.
• The Committee’s questions 3 and 5 imply that the onus for level crossing safety is on railways alone, rather than on highway authorities or road users.

The Heritage Railway Association (HRA)

1. The HRA represents 108 heritage railways and tramways and 60 steam centres around the United Kingdom and Ireland.  The HRA provides advice and guidance to members on changes in legislation and regulation and in safety of operations, and is a forum for sharing good practice as well as for marketing and promotion. The HRA is run entirely by volunteers, and makes good use of those with previous experience of the rail industry and of government and regulation.   In aggregate, member railways and tramways operate 527 miles of track and 408 stations, making 15 million passenger journeys a year.

2. A recent report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail estimated the value of heritage railways and tramways to the UK economy as £250m pa and the sector supports 3,700 jobs as well as attracting 18,500 volunteers.

Safety

3. Safety is the priority for all heritage railways and many of the requirements for the main line network are also applicable on heritage lines, such as the establishment of safety management systems, the reporting of incidents (RIDDOR) and competency training, particularly for staff undertaking safety critical work. The approach reflects the particular characteristics of heritage railways, such as training volunteers and the use of traditional railway equipment. Close contact is maintained between HRA and the Director of Rail Safety and his staff at the Office of Rail Regulation, and details of safety guidance and accident reports, together with the lessons learned are circulated to all members to ensure they are kept up to date.

Level Crossings

4. As on the national rail system, there are many level crossings on heritage railways, varying from traditional gated crossings under the control of a signalman to locally monitored automatic open and barrier-protected crossings, as well as occupation and footpath crossings.  These have traditionally been subject to the same rules and regulations as those on the national network, even though train speeds on heritage railways are limited to 25 mph.  This speed may be further reduced at level crossings if required by local circumstances, such as the sighting distance.  The arrangements at each public road crossing are governed by local legislation, specific to each crossing, approved by a Department for Transport official after inspection by HM Railway Inspectorate, which arrangements we fully endorse.  Safety at farm and footpath crossings is managed through a risk assessment process carried out by the railway.

5. There are three key differences between the conditions of heritage and main line train operation. 

• The speed on heritage railways is limited to 25mph.
• In general, more staff are around on heritage railways to observe train running and report or react to any abnormality.  Steam trains require a crew of two, which is a benefit in terms of watching for any hazards on approaching crossings.   
• Steam locomotives and heritage diesels tend to be more visible and noisier than quiet, modern trains, which means that road users are more likely to be aware of their presence.

Nevertheless, accidents have occurred at level crossings on heritage railways and require continued and constant vigilance to improve safety.  Maintenance of the highway, warning signs, and regular cutting back of vegetation to improve sightlines are all examples of work undertaken to keep both rail and road users safe, although not all highway authorities appear to recognise that some of this work is their responsibility.

6. Whilst train operators are well aware of the risks associated with the use of level crossings we recognise the need to raise awareness amongst road users.  In particular, our railways often operate in holiday areas where car drivers may be unfamiliar with the local roads, or indeed may not encounter a level crossing on the routes they normally travel.  In these circumstances, holidaymakers are in a relaxed frame of mind, and may not be focused on the need for vigilance when using crossings.

Proposed Changes to Level Crossing Legislation

7. We understand that the Law Commissions propose to revise the law in relation to level crossings, replacing the present system, which sets out specific requirements in a bespoke Level Crossing Order with a general duty of care under the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974.  For heritage railways, we believe that if these recommendations were to be adopted, this would cause significant problems as it would replace specific requirements on methods of operation and signage, which the railway can plan to meet, with a general duty of care.  Each railway would have to undertake new risk assessments at every level crossing against unspecific criteria, and we are concerned that they would be open to challenge in the courts in the event of any accident or incident, even when resulting from misuse by the road user.  This would impose a significant workload and risk on our member railways which have limited resources and are predominantly staffed by volunteers.   Moreover, while it is clearly feasible to impose the general duty of care on railway and highway authorities, it is not obvious how the private motorist, cyclist or pedestrian could be brought within its scope.

8. The desire to simplify legislation relating to level crossings is understood, but the effect will result in additional cost and complexity for heritage railways. It is one of a number of examples of unintended consequences of legislation and regulation designed for the national network affecting heritage railways.  Since the Transport and Works Act, 1992, and the Railways Act of 1993, HRA has had to make representations on many occasions to ensure that legislative and regulatory changes do not result in additional and inappropriate burdens on heritage lines which could increase costs and complexity unnecessarily.   In practical terms, we are also concerned at the possible practical problems in disapplying the existing legislative provisions as generally local Acts, Light Railway Orders and Transport and Works Orders cover other associated issues and deal with more than level crossing protection.

Cost Allocation

9. Maintenance and operation of level crossings fall as a cost on the railway concerned, and this includes upgrading the crossing or providing additional safeguards where circumstances change.  Such changes usually occur as a result of increased road traffic, often driven by developments increasing use on what had previously been a quiet rural road.  This is inherently inequitable, requiring significant investment by a small private company supported by a volunteer workforce to fund the consequences of additional traffic resulting from developments which may yield significant profits for the commercial companies concerned.  We believe that developers should bear the cost of any consequential upgrade resulting from a development, and that local highway authorities should bear the cost where the increase is attributable to a general road traffic increase in the area.

Tramways

10. We understand that the Law Commissions will recommend that level crossing legislation should not apply to tramways, since they operate on sight, move at slower speeds and their vehicles are lighter in weight than those on railways.   We would endorse this approach.

Questions Raised by the Committee

1. Are current safety measures at level crossings adequate? How should they be improved?

1. In general, level crossings are safe if used responsibly by both train operator and road user.  Few accidents are caused by equipment failure; most result from human error.  However, it is true that any level crossing provides the potential for conflict between road and rail traffic.

2. In addition to bridges and underpasses what other cost-effective measures can be introduced to replace or improve safety at level crossings? 

1. In some cases it is possible to achieve improvements by diverting roads or footpaths over nearby bridges.

3. How should expenditure on improving safety at level crossings be prioritised in relation to other demands on the rail budget? 

1. It is assumed that the “rail budget” is related to the funding provided by the Government.   Heritage railways receive no such funding and are reliant on private resources to effect changes. 

4. Is Network Rail giving sufficient priority to improving safety at level crossings?

1. We support the work done by Network Rail to increase awareness of the risks at level crossings and to make users more aware of the potential hazards.  This clearly benefits awareness of the risks associated with crossings of heritage railways as well as those on the national network.

5. Is Government policy and regulatory action by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) in relation to safety at level crossings adequate? What more should the Government and ORR do?

1. The requirement is much wider than the need for regulatory action on the rail industry alone.  It involves highway authorities and the road user and is about changing attitudes and behaviour.  This implies that government policy has not perhaps been sufficiently broadly based.  As indicated above, we do not believe that the present policy designed to simplify the law on level crossings will help to deliver a safer system for the heritage sector.

6. How should the legislation governing level crossings be updated?

1. We do not believe that the specific requirements at each location should be replaced by a general and non-specific requirement under the Health & Safety at Work Act, 1974.  The present system has been developed over many years and is very effective in setting out clearly what is required to allow each crossing to be operated safely.   The alternative imports uncertainty, will result in a variety of solutions around the country, and the present consistency of approach will be lost.  We believe it will mean that rail operators will be exposed to legal action and will find it more difficult to secure highway authority or developer contributions, if the primary responsibility is left with them to specify a safe system of operation.  We also believe that such an approach is impractical where level crossing safety actually depends on three parties – the rail operator, the highway authority and the road user, and not on the rail operator alone. 

7. How should public awareness of safety at level crossings be improved?

1. The good work in raising awareness, including advertising, undertaken by Network Rail should continue, but needs to be supported by similar commitment from highway authorities and other agencies concerned with road safety.  For example, it could be given more prominence in the questions for the driving test and could be highlighted in advice from Government on their “Think!” road safety website.

September 2013