Thameslink North South connections
 

In article , (Clive D.
W. Feather) wrote:

In message ,
wrote:
Foxton's a full barrier (with signal box next door). Shepreth might
need converting, a drop in the ocean compared to all the other
Thameslink upgrades.

There may be a signal box next door but it doesn't control Foxton level
crossing. That is controlled by CCTV from Cambridge panel.

Since when? As far as I know, the gate box (not signal box, though it
looks like one) at Foxton still operates the crossing. Certainly last
time I visited Cambridge PSB that was the case, with no controls for
the crossing on the panel.

Some nice stills
in the Cambridge News recently too. ;-)

If you mean

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...traffic-light-
at-level-crossing-01082011.htm
I don't think that's crossing control CCTV, just traffic-watching
CCTV. A signalling CCTV would be arranged so that the barrier post
didn't block the view.

The press report implies there is CCTV coverage but on rereading more
closely it is clear that there is CCTV surveillance with local control of
the gates.

This crossing has a bad history with a much worse case of a tanker hitting
the barriers last year so maybe the CCTV is there for evidence gathering.

Why the lorry driver wasn't charged with endangering passengers on the
railway and sent to jail I don't know. He should have been. This case is
minor by comparison.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thameslink North South connections
 

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
wrote:
There may be a signal box next door but it doesn't control Foxton level
crossing. That is controlled by CCTV from Cambridge panel.

I don't think that's crossing control CCTV, just traffic-watching CCTV.
A signalling CCTV would be arranged so that the barrier post didn't
block the view.

I happened to go past there today. The camera that took the pictures in
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...red-traffic-li
ght-at-level-crossing-01082011.htm
is definitely not a level crossing camera; apart from anything else,
it's not duplicated.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Thameslink North South connections
 

In message , at 21:01:41 on Sun, 7
Aug 2011, Clive D. W. Feather remarked:
There may be a signal box next door but it doesn't control Foxton level
crossing. That is controlled by CCTV from Cambridge panel.

I don't think that's crossing control CCTV, just traffic-watching
CCTV. A signalling CCTV would be arranged so that the barrier post
didn't block the view.

I happened to go past there today. The camera that took the pictures in
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Slideshow-Driver-runs-red-traffic-
light-at-level-crossing-01082011.htm
is definitely not a level crossing camera; apart from anything else,
it's not duplicated.

The newspaper story says:

"The crossing controller who manually operates the barriers
witnessed the incident as well as it being caught on CCTV."

So unless he has binoculars and very long arms, he's going to have to be
on site.
--
Roland Perry

Thameslink North South connections
 

In message , Roland Perry
wrote:
The newspaper story says:

"The crossing controller who manually operates the barriers
witnessed the incident as well as it being caught on CCTV."

So unless he has binoculars and very long arms, he's going to have to be
on site.

"Manually" is a slight distraction; he presses buttons in the gate box
to lower the barriers, then turns rotary switches to release the slots
(technical term) on the protecting signals CA113, CA114, CA551, and
CA556.

He also has separate controls to lock the wicket gates for pedestrians;
I've been let across right in front of a (stationary) up train in order
to catch it.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Thameslink North South connections
 

In message , at 18:31:50 on Mon, 8
Aug 2011, Clive D. W. Feather remarked:
In message , Roland Perry
wrote:
The newspaper story says:

"The crossing controller who manually operates the barriers
witnessed the incident as well as it being caught on CCTV."

So unless he has binoculars and very long arms, he's going to have to be
on site.

"Manually" is a slight distraction; he presses buttons in the gate box
to lower the barriers, then turns rotary switches to release the slots
(technical term) on the protecting signals CA113, CA114, CA551, and
CA556.

What I was contrasting wasn't whether he was in the box at the crossing
pressing button with his hands (manually) or his nose (nasally), but
whether he was doing it *at* the crossing, rather than from perhaps a
mile away and observing the crossing with binoculars (having already
established it wasn't done via CCTV).
--
Roland Perry

Thameslink North South connections
 

In message , Roland Perry
wrote:
"Manually" is a slight distraction; he presses buttons in the gate box
to lower the barriers, then turns rotary switches to release the slots
(technical term) on the protecting signals CA113, CA114, CA551, and
CA556.

What I was contrasting wasn't whether he was in the box at the crossing
pressing button with his hands (manually) or his nose (nasally), but
whether he was doing it *at* the crossing,

Yes. I was just pointing out that he doesn't walk out of the box and
lower the barriers by hand (the way that, say, Elsenham crossing is
still worked).

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: