Boom gate failures force indefinite shutdown (Melbourne, Aust)

The Stony Point rail line (Melbourne, Australia) is closed indefinitely following a series of safety breaches in which boom gates failed to drop for an approaching train.

Metro cannot give a date on when the line will re-open.

The most recent level crossing failure happened last week in Tyabb, south of Melbourne.

It was the second failure this month and the last straw for rail operator Metro, which closed the line indefinitely on Monday to avoid the risk of a collision.

Poor track condition has been blamed for the boom-gate failures. Contamination from rust, leaves and sand is interfering with track signals that detect a train's approach, Metro said.

Replacement buses will run along the line between Frankston and Stony Point on the Mornington Peninsula until further notice, adding about 15 minutes to travel times.

Metro spokeswoman Larisa Tait said the line had been closed as a precaution.

"At no point were any services in danger of collision with cars as our train drivers picked up the faults before proceeding through affected level crossings," Ms Tait said. "However, we have decided to close the line while we implement an engineering solution to address the problem permanently."

The semi-rural Stony Point line is by far the quietest in the metropolitan network, with just seven diesel train services a day.

It was temporarily shut in August due to three boom-gate failures involving single-carriage trains. In response, Metro introduced two-carriage trains and began daily track inspections.

But the latest failures have forced it to seek out an entirely new level-crossing safety system that does not rely on sensors in the track to detect a coming train.

Axle counters specifically designed for the Stony Point line would be procured, Ms Tait said.

"We are working to reopen the Stony Point line as quickly as possible, and will have a better understanding of the duration of disruption after more detailed evaluation this week," she said.

"We are also investigating other rolling-stock options in the short term, and will update customers on any progress in this space."

Isn't the Labor government going to get rid of all the lever crossings in Melbourne? I can think of only two in the whole of Sydney.

" said:

Isn't the Labor government going to get rid of all the lever crossings in Melbourne? I can think of only two in the whole of Sydney.

Oz, you are kidding me! I know of 15 level crossings in Sydney.

FYI!
8 on Richmond line.
3 on the South.
1 at Clyde.
2 on Sandown line.
1 at Mascot.

E&OE
Barry

Quote:

Poor track condition has been blamed for the boom-gate failures. Contamination from rust, leaves and sand is interfering with track signals that detect a train's approach, Metro said.
[...]
But the latest failures have forced it to seek out an entirely new level-crossing safety system that does not rely on sensors in the track to detect a coming train.

Axle counters specifically designed for the Stony Point line would be procured, Ms Tait said.

The Stony Point rail line (Melbourne, Australia) is closed indefinitely following a series of safety breaches in which boom gates failed to drop for an approaching train.

Metro cannot give a date on when the line will re-open.

...

It was temporarily shut in August due to three boom-gate failures involving single-carriage trains. In response, Metro introduced two-carriage trains and began daily track inspections.

But the latest failures have forced it to seek out an entirely new level-crossing safety system that does not rely on sensors in the track to detect a coming train.

Axle counters specifically designed for the Stony Point line would be procured, Ms Tait said.

"We are working to reopen the Stony Point line as quickly as possible, and will have a better understanding of the duration of disruption after more detailed evaluation this week," she said.

"We are also investigating other rolling-stock options in the short term, and will update customers on any progress in this space."

Second when this problem cropped up on the PRSL Cape May branch (see above photo) in the waning years of the service, one solution to deal with rusty rail conditions was to weld the equivalent of rumble strips on the track made out of some corrosion resistant material. When the train went over the welded bits of metal that would trigger the crossing protection even if the rail was otherwise rusted over.

" said:

Second when this problem cropped up on the PRSL Cape May branch (see above photo) in the waning years of the service, one solution to deal with rusty rail conditions was to weld the equivalent of rumble strips on the track made out of some corrosion resistant material. When the train went over the welded bits of metal that would trigger the crossing protection even if the rail was otherwise rusted over.

I have seen this done in Queensland, Australia. A stainless steel welded zigzag strip on the rail head of rarely used tracks to ensure track circuit conductivity is maintained. I'll try and procure a picture.

The standard approach in the UK is that AHBs are triggered by two separate mechanisms, normally a track circuit and a treadle. Depressing the treadle will trigger the track circuit - it is often wired in series with the track circuit relay, so that no extra logic is required. This way, when a train reaches the strike-in point it will start the crossing sequence even if the rails are covered in rust.

Pic of a treadle, and block joint, adjacent to an AHB level crossing.

If a DC track circuit has already failed to detect the train, why would an AC track circuit do any better?

Why are treadles preferable to audio frequency track circuits?

Depressing the treadle will trigger the track circuit - it is often wired in series with the track circuit relay, so that no extra logic is required.

Just to confirm, is the treadle operated mechanically by the wheel flange?

" said:

Why are treadles preferable to audio frequency track circuits?

Not sure what (if any) AF TCs are authorised for use over here, but in any case treadles for level crossing strike-in have been in use since the early 1960s, are simple and robust and have a very high degree of reliability; if it ain't bust, don't fix it.

Where lines are track circuited, treadles are normally provided in addition to the track circuit. One is to increase reliability to off the scale... the one thing you don't want is the 1-in-10 million wrong side failure to affect an AHB on a 100mph running line.

It's the old S&T engineer's preference for belt and braces (and a piece of string to make sure). The other, perhaps more realistic, reason is that certain vehicles (mainly civil engineers' on-track machines) cannot be relied upon to operate track circuits. They run under special arrangements set out in the Rules & Regs but you still need them to operate level crossing strike-ins, for which a treadle is ideal.

" said:

" said:

Why are treadles preferable to audio frequency track circuits?

Not sure what (if any) AF TCs are authorised for use over here, but in any case treadles for level crossing strike-in have been in use since the early 1960s, are simple and robust and have a very high degree of reliability; if it ain't bust, don't fix it.

Mechanical items usually require both inspection and preventative maintenance. Also with treadles you need some mechanism so that random students or animals or whatever can't just trigger the crossing gates. Seriously, having a "lower crossing gates here" button that isn't in a locked box is an attractive nuisance.

" said:

Where lines are track circuited, treadles are normally provided in addition to the track circuit. One is to increase reliability to off the scale... the one thing you don't want is the 1-in-10 million wrong side failure to affect an AHB on a 100mph running line.

I'd suggest louder horns

" said:

It's the old S&T engineer's preference for belt and braces (and a piece of string to make sure). The other, perhaps more realistic, reason is that certain vehicles (mainly civil engineers' on-track machines) cannot be relied upon to operate track circuits. They run under special arrangements set out in the Rules & Regs but you still need them to operate level crossing strike-ins, for which a treadle is ideal.

Can't they just slow down and occupy the highway crossing with care?

" said:

" said:

Why are treadles preferable to audio frequency track circuits?

Not sure what (if any) AF TCs are authorised for use over here, but in any case treadles for level crossing strike-in have been in use since the early 1960s, are simple and robust and have a very high degree of reliability; if it ain't bust, don't fix it.

Mechanical items usually require both inspection and preventative maintenance. Also with treadles you need some mechanism so that random students or animals or whatever can't just trigger the crossing gates. Seriously, having a "lower crossing gates here" button that isn't in a locked box is an attractive nuisance.

" said:

Where lines are track circuited, treadles are normally provided in addition to the track circuit. One is to increase reliability to off the scale... the one thing you don't want is the 1-in-10 million wrong side failure to affect an AHB on a 100mph running line.

I'd suggest louder horns

" said:

It's the old S&T engineer's preference for belt and braces (and a piece of string to make sure). The other, perhaps more realistic, reason is that certain vehicles (mainly civil engineers' on-track machines) cannot be relied upon to operate track circuits. They run under special arrangements set out in the Rules & Regs but you still need them to operate level crossing strike-ins, for which a treadle is ideal.

Can't they just slow down and occupy the highway crossing with care?

" said:

I'd suggest louder horns

Not a lot of use if a crossing's failed wrong-side. If the crossing isn't operating correctly there's be nothing to stop road traffic continuing to run until the train is far too close for evasive action. 100mph doesn't allow that sort of (desperately unsafe, in my view) expedient.