Inconsistent attitudes in rail safety

Railway trespassing is ‘not all kids’, according to the British Transport Police Lancashire twitter.

Instead of using the ‘correct route of slope to road, under railway, slope up other side’, 70 year olds crossed the tracks at the end of the platforms at Garsdale station on the (little-used) Settle and Carlisle line, where there is ‘non-stopping regular freight with 70 mph linespeed’.

Actually, perhaps not 70 mph freight, judging by the curvature of the line.

The safety risk from crossing rail tracks at-grade would depend on a wide range of factors. Depending on the situation, the risk might be very high, or negligible. In many countries – including some in western Europe – crossing tracks at-grade is the only way to reach station platforms.

Statistically, how dangerous is the pensioners’ Garsdale shortcut, compared to crossing a main road in Manchester? How much of the track crossing risk arises from the lack of wooden boards between the rails, and the absence of warning devices?

The inconsistency of treatment of risk is not just between rail and road, but also within the rail industry itself. For example, trains for Crossrail 1 are being delivered with low-visibility front ends, for no obvious advantage. It is perfectly possible to imagine scenarios where ‘high intensity’ train lights malfunctioned, or were not recognised, for some other reason, leaving trackworkers exposed to unnecessary risk.