Consultation outcome

Improving signage at private level crossings: government response

Updated 20 October 2023

Foreword from the Rail Minister

The UK has one of the strongest rail safety records in Europe. But the government will always act to make improvements when these are needed. One such area of improvement is at private level crossings.

Private level crossings provide a vital means of access to many people and businesses across Great Britain, particularly in rural communities. Many of these crossings preserve private rights of way that existed long before the railways did. Conditions have changed significantly since these crossings were first introduced in the 19th century, with faster and more frequent train services and a wider and more diverse group of potential users, not all of whom will be familiar with the layout of a particular crossing.

Rail infrastructure managers such as Network Rail have an important responsibility for safety at private level crossings and for ensuring that that these crossings provide people and businesses with safe means of access that reflect the conditions of the 21st century. To enable them to do this, we need to ensure that the signs at these crossings provide clear instructions to users on their safe use. Unfortunately, the older signs are no longer fit for purpose, as recent incidents have shown. In its reports into 2 serious incidents, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch found that the current signage needed updating to make it clearer and safer for users.

This is why, in April 2022, my department launched a public consultation proposing to revise the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 1996 and replace them with a new set of regulations. Throughout the consultation period, my officials had valuable feedback from level crossing operators, regulatory bodies, businesses and individuals with experience using private crossings. I am grateful to stakeholders for the constructive comments received on these proposals.

The consultation responses we received demonstrated strong support for our proposals and made suggestions for further areas of improvement. We have listened to this feedback and have made changes to the proposed signage as a result. A further consultation, on updates to the design of the signs, was conducted in April 2023. This document also provides a response to that April 2023 consultation and the feedback we received from both consultations will inform the sign designs that we now plan to take forward into law. We intend to present the legislation to Parliament as soon as possible.

I appreciate that there will be aspects of our proposals that parts of the sector may find challenging, including our expected timetable for implementation. However, I am clear that the safety improvements the new signs will provide for users of level crossings will be well worth this effort. It is important that we make these changes to ensure the continued safety of our railways for all users including those who rely on private level crossings.

Huw Merriman
Minister of State for Rail

Background

Private level crossings (‘private crossings’) exist where the railway bisects a private right of way and where the public in general do not have the right to use the crossing. Nonetheless, these crossings play a vital role in providing access to properties, fields and in some cases, businesses. There are around 3,000 of these types of crossing in Great Britain. Most of these crossings are on the mainline railway, but some can also be found on heritage and tram lines. As is the case with public crossings, the main legal responsibility for private crossings rests with rail infrastructure managers (which are referred to in the rest of this consultation response as ‘operators’), including Network Rail. Landowners and employers also have general duties under legislation such as the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and 1984 and the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

These crossings, which are often referred to as ‘private user-worked crossings’, generally rely on the user to follow instructions placed on signs to determine when it is safe to cross and can also include other measures to ensure their safe use. Some crossings have gates that are either manually or power operated, while others provide a telephone for users to call a signaller to check that it is safe to cross. Others rely on users visually checking that no trains are approaching, and some have miniature stop lights that are red when a train is approaching and turn green when it is safe for the user to cross. These measures have legal force and all signs or barriers placed on, or near, private crossings must be those prescribed in regulations or otherwise authorised by the Secretary of State. However, signs are not mandatory at private level crossings and it is for the crossing operator to determine, based on a risk assessment, whether, and if so, what, signs are required for the safe use of a particular crossing.

The number and diversity of users of private level crossings have increased significantly since the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations1996 (the 1996 regulations) were made, in part due to an increase in the number of couriers and home delivery drivers. Not all these users will be familiar with private crossings, and nor will these users be familiar with the safe use of these crossings. In addition, rail traffic has increased significantly along many previously quiet routes, increasing the risks to users of these crossings.

Several serious incidents at private crossings have shown that the signage used at these crossings needs updating. In its reports on the 2 incidents at Frampton Mansell and Frognal Farm, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) found that the current signage is not always fulfilling this function and needs updating to make it clearer and safer for users. RAIB’s report on Frognal Farm also found that the system where ‘authorised users’ are responsible for briefing visitors about the safe way to use private crossings was unreasonable in present-day circumstances and recommended that its practicality and feasibility should be reviewed.

The consultations

In April 2022, we launched a consultation seeking views on proposed revisions to the signage at these crossings, the treatment of the concept of “authorised user”, and an appropriate rollout period for the new signs. The public consultation exercise sought views on these changes and allowed respondents to express other comments, views or concerns. The consultation received 64 responses from a mixture of operators, private residents and interested parties.

Many of the comments received were on the signs themselves and the department spent a year working with Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB), Network Rail (NR) and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) to revise the signs to reflect these comments to support the effectiveness of the proposed new signs.

A further consultation was held in April 2023, with 39 responses received.

This document provides a summary of responses received to both consultations and outlines the government’s response to them and our planned next steps.

Who the consultations were for

We have published 2 public consultations on this subject on GOV.UK. The main audiences were:

• all private level crossing operators
• residents and businesses who use private level crossings to access their premises
• any other interested party

Consultation period

The initial consultation (the ‘first consultation’) in 2022 ran for 8 weeks from 6 April to 1 June 2022. The subsequent consultation on the revised signs (the ‘second consultation’) ran for 5 weeks from 5 April to 10 May 2023, with the shorter period reflecting the more limited consultation scope. Responses could be submitted by either email or by post.

Proposals

Both consultations were conducted according to the Cabinet Office consultation principles.

The first consultation published by the department proposed to revoke the 1996 regulations and replace them with a new set of regulations.  The new regulations were proposed to prescribe a set of new signs that provide clearer information on the safe use of private crossings. The consultation also:

• proposed an approach to replacing the signage in the 1996 Regulations with the signage contained in the new regulations, to ensure these are in place as soon as reasonably practicable
• clarified the department’s view that the concept of ‘authorised users’ with a duty to instruct all other potential users of private crossings, which had been highlighted by RAIB as a concern, has no legal basis

The second consultation in 2023 proposed a revised set of signs based on feedback from the first consultation. The changes reduced the total number of signs and made them clearer and easier to understand.

Methodology

Both consultations were conducted according to the Cabinet Office consultation principles. The first consultation was held over a period of 8 weeks, with the second consultation available for 5 weeks. Both consultations were published on the GOV.UK website, and were publicised to industry stakeholders, landowners and other interested parties via email or letter.

Sixty-four responses were received to the first consultation from a mixture of operators, private residents and interested parties. We assessed these detailed comments and worked with the ORR, NR and RSSB to develop an updated suite of signs that maintained the spirit of the originals, while simplifying and improving them to make them easier to understand. These signs were tested with level crossing, signage and human factors experts to ensure they are clear and practicable. These signs were then reconsulted on during the second consultation, and we received 39 responses in relation to them.

Responses from both consultations were assessed and grouped into themes, which are summarised in the next section of this consultation response document. This document is structured in the same way as the first consultation document: each question is listed individually, with a summary of the feedback received and the government’s response immediately below it. We have included the feedback on the updated signage from the second consultation in the summary of feedback to question 3 from the first consultation, which also concerned the design of the signs. Any comments received during the second consultation that do not relate to the signage are covered in the summary of feedback to question 7 of the original consultation.

Responses received and government response

Question 1

What are your views on the case for change that is set out in this document?

Summary of responses to question

Of the 39 respondents who replied to this question, 77% agreed that the case for change had been made.

There were several supportive comments from organisations and members of the public. One organisation said:

we believe that the case for change, given recent events, is strong

However, one consultee expressed a view that the case for change could have been made more strongly, although they agreed that improvements at private crossings were urgently required. This consultee suggested that a broader pool of evidence could have been used in considering the case for this new legislation, such as providing data specifically on private crossing use (as opposed to general road usage) and more data on changes in pedestrian or equestrian use.

Additionally, 13% of those who agreed that the case for change had been made suggested that the case was clearer for the mainline railway. They argued that for heritage operators, who tend to operate at lower speeds and tend to have a lower overall risk profile arising from incorrect use of crossings, the case for change was less persuasive.

Government response

The responses to this question demonstrated strong agreement with the case for change. The government is, therefore, assured that the basis for making these proposals is sound and intends to introduce legislation to bring the new signage in to force, replacing the existing 1996 Regulations. We are confident that this will help to improve safety at private level crossings.

While we note the suggestion that a broader pool of evidence could be presented, we believe that the findings from previous reports published by the independent safety investigation body, RAIB, that identified signage as an issue at private level crossings, as well as the strong support expressed in this consultation, provide a more than sufficient basis to make changes in this area. Further, the support for these changes from both ORR and RSSB provides us with additional confidence that the approach we are taking is the correct one.

While it is recognised that heritage railways operate differently to the mainline, it is important that private level crossings have consistent signage to avoid confusion for users, which could itself create a safety risk. As a result, the signage prescribed in the new regulations may be used at all private level crossings. However, we have made some changes to the proposals to accommodate the unique character of heritage railways, based upon the feedback received from consultees. More information on this is contained in response to Question 3.

Question 2

What do you think of the time period suggested for the rollout of the new signs? Do you think that this time period could be, or should be, further shortened?

Summary of responses to question

It was suggested in the first consultation that the rollout of the new signs should take place by 2029 (the end of Control Period 7) and sooner for Network Rail in most cases. Of the 34 responses received to this question, 35% supported the time period suggested for the rollout of the new signs. A further 32% of respondents thought that, as the signs were safety-related, the timeframe should be shortened. This means that 67% of respondents were in favour of either the current timeframe or reducing it.

However, other respondents suggested that placing the new signs over a shorter time period could focus resource away from other safety measures required on the network, and that the rollout period should be extended. This view was expressed by 12% of respondents.

A common theme among the responses, regardless of the timeframe they preferred, was that the rollout of the new signs should be on a risk-based approach, with the riskiest crossings being updated first. One respondent suggested that level crossings with identified sighting issues should be addressed first as these are a higher risk to those with hearing difficulties.

A further concern identified in response to this question was that heritage railways would find it difficult to meet the suggested timeframe, due to the lasting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and broader funding difficulties on their ability to meet the cost of making the changes.

It was also suggested that there may be supply shortages for the new signs, due to the increased demand for signs during the rollout period and the limited number of companies that produce them.

Government response

Given that, in total, 67% of respondents were in favour of either the current timeframe for the rollout of the new signs, or shortening it, this demonstrates broad agreement that this should be done promptly. After careful consideration, we have concluded that our proposed deadline of March 2029 for the completion of the sign upgrade across the private level crossing estate is reasonable and appropriate. This will give operators, including heritage railways, several years to upgrade to the new signs and mirrors Control Period 7 for the mainline railway. We believe this is a realistic and equitable position.

We consider that operators should take a risk-based approach to upgrading the signs at their private level crossings, using suitable risk assessment models. We would expect to see operators target the riskiest crossings first, with the aim of reducing incidents of fatalities and near misses. We will be writing to operators to confirm our expectations in this regard.

We believe that the current rollout period of several years reduces the risk of a supply shortage of these signs due to a period of high demand. The risk-based approach outlined above will mean a phased rollout, reducing the resourcing pressures on the companies that produce these, while ensuring that areas of safety risk are addressed as soon as practical.

Question 3

What are your views on the content and format of the signage proposed at Annex B? Are there improvements or suggestions you recommend, especially in relation to those who may have disabilities?

Summary of responses to question

We received a large number of comments in relation to the sign designs, some of which were highly technical. To ensure we gave all comments due consideration by experts, we re-established the working group that was originally set up to develop the signs, with DfT, ORR, NR and RSSB represented. This group considered the comments and developed final sign designs that were then subject to a second consultation in April 2023. The following section gives a summary of the main comments received during the first consultation, along with an explanation as to whether the comment led to a change in the signage designs.

Comments on the sign designs

Consultee feedback

Clarify which instructions apply to which user groups, as it may not be clear to users whether they should follow the high-level instruction sign or the detailed information sign where there is a conflict.

Government response

We agree that any risk of conflict between these signs needs to be avoided. To rectify this, we propose to embed, within each section of the detailed instruction sign, pictograms providing general instructions (for example, Stop Look and Listen) to the relevant user groups. To avoid any situation where the high-level sign conflicts with the detailed instruction sign, we are also proposing an additional high-level ‘STOP’ sign. This is covered in more detail in the box below.

Consultee feedback

Reconsider the sign layout at individual crossings, in particular which ‘high level’ information sign is provided along with the universal user-worked crossing warning sign. The proposal to have a ‘high-level’ sign telling users to Stop Look Listen, use the telephone or use the miniature stop lights is potentially confusing at crossings where different instructions are recommended for different types of users.

Government response

We agree that the previous proposal was potentially confusing, and we are, therefore, now proposing a smaller variant of the universal STOP sign. This will provide an initial ‘high level’ instruction for users to stop before reading the relevant instruction sign containing more detailed information for specific user groups. Other high-level information signs (for example, Stop Look Listen) will continue to be used where the same instructions are given for all user groups.

Consultee feedback

Reconsider which pictograms of user groups are included in the signs (for example, cycle symbol). For example, some consultees mentioned that they were horse riders, but the recommended sign at the crossing they used did not have a horse rider symbol.

Government response

We have reconsidered which user groups should be represented by pictograms on individual signs. In the original consultation, the proposed pictograms had represented only some groups of users. However, we are aware that usage may be broader than this at many private crossings. For instance, dirt bike and mountain bike usage is common at some rural crossings. In other cases, a public footpath may use the same access point, or one close by, which is only for private use.

To reduce the risk of confusion, we have broadened the signage to include all expected user groups by default. This has the effect of reducing the number of signs as well, enabling 20 of the previous ‘DI’ signs to be withdrawn for the second consultation. Operators will need to determine which types of users use each crossing, based on their own risk assessments, and to select which signs to place from the prescribed list.

In instances where public access points are adjacent to private crossings, “permitted access only” signs will also be placed to make clear that the private crossing may only be used by those groups represented on the sign, if they are permitted to do so. More information on the “permitted access only” sign is included later in this table.

Consultee feedback

Reduce the number of signs.

Government response

As set out in our response to the comment above, we have reduced the number of proposed signs. This will make it easier to deploy the new signs and improve the consistency of the information given to crossing users.

Consultee feedback

The detailed information signage assumes all crossings that allow slow-moving users to use them will either have a telephone installed or a signaller employed to advise whether it is safe to cross. This is not the case for many heritage rail-operated crossings, which do not employ signallers and/or do not have a telephone provided.

Government response

We have reconsidered our approach to catering for the specific requirements of heritage railway operators.

To accommodate the fact that heritage operators often do not employ signallers, the telephone number of a person recommended by the operator (or the signaller on the mainline railway) will be shown on the detailed instruction signs provided at crossings without a telephone where slow-moving or other users are instructed to phone before crossing.

Second, we have added a ‘Stop Look and Listen’ sign (DI25H in the second consultation) that may be deployed at user-worked crossings with no telephone, miniature stop lights (MSLs), or power operated gate openers (POGOs) on heritage railways. This is designed for universal use on vehicular, footpath and bridleway crossings where there is no full-time signaller and/or services can be irregular, such as on some heritage railways. This additional sign reflects the fact that for some crossings over heritage railways, Stop Look and Listen is the crossing method provided to all user groups. We expect that this new sign will only be used on heritage railways and will not be suitable for any crossings managed by Network Rail.

Consultee feedback

The following sentence is confusing: ‘Always telephone before crossing with a vehicle which is large, low, slow moving or with animals.’

Should there be a comma in the sentence, or do the instructions only apply to vehicles with animals?

Government response

We agree with the suggested amendment and have added a comma to this sentence to make it clear the instruction applies to any user crossing with an animal (unless a horse rider symbol is shown in another section of the sign). The sentence now reads: ‘Always telephone before crossing with a large, low or slow moving vehicle, or with animals.’

Consultee feedback

Reconsider the wording of sign BA02, as ‘bi-directional’ is not sufficiently clear.

Government response

We have modified the wording of this sign to convey this message more clearly.

Consultee feedback

Make the ‘universal warning sign’ an equilateral triangle, as opposed to the dimensions of W600MM x H530mm given.

Government response

The 530mm dimension in the diagram refers to the height of the triangle, rather than to the length of each side, which will be 600mm. This aligns with the established proportions of standard warning signs, illustrated in the department’s working drawing number P500. On this basis, we agree with the comment that the sign should be equilateral, but this does not require a change.

Consultee feedback

At crossings where there are 2 access points (for example, a public pedestrian gate and a separate gate for private vehicles), there is potential for confusion as to which instructions apply.

Government response

We agree that there is the potential for confusion and have, therefore, proposed supplementary signs to be included at such crossings to show users which instructions apply to each access point.

Consultee feedback

At crossings with 2 access points (for example, a public pedestrian gate and a separate gate for private vehicles), there is a risk of misunderstanding as to which users are allowed to use the different access points.

Government response

We agree there is potential for confusion in this scenario and, therefore, we have included a new “permitted access only” sign which may be used to differentiate between access rights of public and private users at these types of crossing.

Consultee feedback

We believe there is already a universal warning sign used on roads in Great Britain that would fulfil the function of showing an upcoming private level crossing (for example, Diagrams 770 and 771 from The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD)).

Government response

RSSB research project T756 found that a precursor to sign UV01 should replace diagram 770 and 771 at private user-worked crossings. In subsequent research project T983, the new sign UV01 was found to be strongly associated with trains in general, as well as with level crossings, gates and warnings, and this design was settled upon. Further user trials ratified this finding. We are, therefore, satisfied that the new universal warning sign better communicates the existence of user-worked crossings to potential users than either Diagram 770 or 771.

While we are not proposing to include Diagrams 770 and 771 in the new sign designs, they (and certain others from TSRGD) will be permitted to be used at private level crossings which have a usage profile more aligned with a public crossing. An example of this would be where a private level crossing that once gave access to fields now gives access to a busy factory site, or trading estate. These types of crossing will, as now, be better served through use of public road symbols.

Consultee feedback

Consider adding ‘What Three Words’ locations to the sign containing identifying information about the crossing, as this is more easily communicated on the phone.

Government response

We are satisfied that the identifying information provided on this sign is sufficient to communicate its location over the phone. Furthermore, ‘What Three Words’ is a private company and there is a risk that this system could fall into disuse, causing the signage prescribed in the regulations to become obsolete.

Consultee feedback

For the sign about trains only sounding their warning horn between 6am and midnight, a 2009 report into a fatal incident at Cults Mill Crossing in Scotland made reference to whistling stopping at 23:00 to reduce neighbour disturbance. Therefore, we are not sure if this sign reflects the operational practices across the network.

Government response

We are satisfied that the existing wording is correct and reflects most operational practices. This is consistent with guidance produced by Network Rail on the Night Time Quiet Period (PDF), which confirms that trains should sound their warning horn from 6AM until midnight (and, therefore, not outside these hours). Heritage or other operators not running trains at these times would not need to put this sign up. However, we have included a flexibility within the regulations that allows different times to be displayed should other operators use different operational practices.

Consultee feedback

For the signs being carried forward from the existing 1996 regulations (for example, Diagram 113), changes should be made to bring these more in-line with the other new signage proposed (i.e. the ‘Danger’ should be in red writing in Diagram 113).

Government response

Some existing signage from the 1996 regulations was included in the new regulations because they are still relevant and convey an adequate level of information. The working group determined that these particular signs were still suitable for the network in their current form and did not need to be replaced. On this basis, we do not consider further updating is necessary.

Consultee feedback

The opportunity to include a ‘QR code’ (or similar) to enable users to access site specific step-by-step instructions, along with audio and visual support, should be considered. This will improve the accessibility provisions at private crossings.

Government response

For the mainline railway, Network Rail has been exploring with its suppliers the option of providing a QR code or similar technology to provide audio-visual warnings or instructions to users. This exercise is being conducted separately from these regulations, as more detailed consideration is needed on the practicality of such measures before they can be rolled out more widely.

Signs 148 and DI25H

In the period between the 2 consultations, there was a fatality at Lady Howard Crossing in Surrey where a user was struck by a train passing in the opposite direction to one that had just cleared the crossing. This prompted RAIB to address a recommendation to Network Rail about the risk to crossing users of trains passing a crossing in quick succession (or at the same time) in opposite directions.

To help address this risk, we proposed an additional sign (Sign SI48 – now diagram 156) in the second consultation, which alerts users to the risks of multiple trains approaching from different directions.

The designs that we consulted on during the second consultation were generally well-received, with 88% of the 18 respondents to this question saying that the suite of signs represented an improvement over the previous designs.

Two comments were received that suggested the sign SI48 should be modified to reflect its potential use at crossings that pass over more than 2 tracks. On this basis, these respondents suggested that the signs should be modified to instruct users not to cross until ‘all’ lines are clear, rather than ‘both’. These 2 respondents also suggested that the pictogram in the sign should be made clearer.

Several comments were received during the second consultation about the new sign (DI25H – now diagram 133), which was added for universal use on heritage railways where there is no full-time signaller or where services can be irregular. Some respondents asked for clarity about the circumstances in which this sign would be used. Other respondents queried whether this sign should encourage users to close the gates on foot, as some of the other detailed information signs have done.

Several comments were received in both consultations about the location of the signs at private crossings. For example, during the second consultation, one comment was received about whether the universal warning sign (UV01 – now diagram 101) should be placed some distance in advance of a crossing, or at the crossing itself.

It was suggested in the working group that operators should continue to be allowed to place certain TSRGD signs and road markings at private level crossings, as is currently permitted by the 1996 Regulations, to better reflect the situation at certain level crossings.

Government response

As mentioned above, we made a number of amendments to the proposed signage in response to the responses we received to the first consultation, which were then subject to a second, more focused, consultation. Given the clear consensus that emerged from the second consultation that the amended designs represent an improvement, we now intend to take this amended set of signs forward into legislation.

Nonetheless, following feedback received in the second consultation, we have made some further refinements to the sign designs.

We have modified sign SI48 to say ‘all’ instead of ‘both’ lines should be clear before users cross, to allow this sign to be more safely placed at multi-track crossings. We have also modified the diagram and some of the other text to make it more easily understood by users, based upon consultee feedback. The revised design, which will be taken forward into the new regulations, is shown at in the image diagrams document on the GOV.UK home page for this consultation.

We have made some small grammatical and formatting changes to the “MSLs with Integrated User Instructions” signs to ensure consistency between them. These signs are now known as diagrams 158 and 159. Similar formatting changes were made to signs DI23 and DI28 (now known as diagrams 130 and 136).

We replaced the term “crossing operator” where it appeared so that it now refers to “signaller” to make it consistent across all sign designs.

We made other minor changes to the images of some of the signs, to make them clearer in the new regulations, but the designs themselves remain the same as in the second consultation.

It was also decided to remove signs 107 and 108, which are MSL signs that already exist in the 1996 regulations. This is because the newer designs we have proposed (MSLs with integrated user instructions, signs 158 and 159) have larger lenses and associated backing boards to accommodate larger LED lighting, so the older signs no longer need to be prescribed.

In response to the comments about the intended use of the new sign, DI25H, which is designed for use on heritage railways only, we have included more detail in about that in this section of the government response above.

We will aim to facilitate sharing of good practice in discussion with the heritage rail sector after these regulations have been introduced.

While we understand the rationale for including an instruction to close the gates on foot in sign DI25H, we have decided to retain the existing design. As the proposed addition could prevent the sign being used universally by heritage operators as intended (for example, by requiring horse riders to dismount at all crossings), we have retained the original design to give heritage operators more flexibility.

The final sign designs that will be prescribed in the new regulations are shown in the image diagrams document on the GOV.UK home page for this consultation. It should be noted that the sign numbers of many of the signs are different from their equivalents in in the previous consultation document. This is to ensure the sign numbers follow a logical and clear order in the final regulations. We have included in the table in image diagrams document a cross-reference to the equivalent sign numbers in the second consultation, to help highlight where changes have been made.

We intend to work with Network Rail to ensure guidance on the correct placement and configuration of signage at most private crossings is made available to all rail operators, such as those in the heritage sector. For example, this guidance will make it clear that the universal warning sign (UV01) should be placed at the crossing itself, not on the approach to it, in most circumstances.

The government agrees that certain TSRGD signs and road markings should continue to be permitted to be placed where needed at private level crossings, to better reflect the situation at these crossings. We are aware that there are some private level crossings that have developed over time from field access to busy routes that link, for instance, an industrial estate to the public road network. Allowing certain TSRGD signs and road markings to be placed at these crossings will ensure consistency with signage used on the road network and should be less confusing for the many road users who frequent them. The signs and road markings that will be prescribed in the regulations are 770, 771,772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 778.1, 779, 781, 782, 783, 784.1, 785.1, 786, 787, 788, 790, 602, 963. 3, 1001, 1002.1, 1003A, 1003.2, 1004, 1012.1, 1013.1, 1022, 1023A, 1026, 1045 and 3014.

Question 4

This consultation suggests that the concept of authorised user is outdated and, therefore, does not need to be set out in legislation. The duty of care imposed by the Occupiers’ Liability Acts and HSWA are considered to be adequate. Instead, the revised signage proposed in this document and the continued outreach and briefings provided by crossing operators will help to ensure the safety of those using level crossings. What do you think of this proposal?

The consultation responses showed a large majority in favour of this proposal, with 78% of respondents agreeing that the concept of authorised user was outdated.

However, some respondents expressed concern that this could reduce safety as rail operators may not have the resources or contact information needed to brief all potential users. It was also suggested that landowners and tenants should be encouraged to continue to take all reasonable steps to brief visitors on the safe use of these crossings.

Some respondents mentioned that the department or operators should reach out to users of private crossings, to help educate them on their use.

Government response

After considering the consultation responses to this question, we remain confident in our earlier assessment that the term ‘authorised user’ is outdated and potentially confusing. Moreover, it considers that other existing legislation provides a robust means for enforcing landowners’ and employers’ responsibilities towards their tenants, employees and visitors for the safe use of these crossings. It, therefore, considers that there is no case for legislating to create a statutory definition of ‘authorised user’ as some respondents had requested, and that operators should be discouraged from using the term. This is consistent with RAIB’s finding in their Frognal Farm report that the system where ‘authorised users’ are responsible for briefing visitors about the safe way to use private crossings is ‘unreasonable’ in present-day circumstances.

As outlined in the consultation document, we are clear that rail operators retain the main responsibility for ensuring the safe use of private level crossings. It expects operators to discharge their responsibilities through the timely introduction of the revised signage contained in the new regulations, through targeted engagement with local landowners, employers and other user groups, and through adoption of improved technology where available and appropriate.

We intend to write to operators to clarify their obligations under the existing legislation and its wider expectations in relation to safety at private level crossings. In particular, it will make clear its view that local employers and landowners do not have a legal obligation, as implied by the term ‘authorised user’, to instruct all other potential users on the safe use of private crossings to access their land. Instead, it will point to these bodies’ existing obligations under other legislation, including the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1984, to ensure the safety of people who visit their premises, and it will make clear that it expects operators to engage with these bodies on this basis.

We will also engage with the ORR, Network Rail, RAIB and Heritage rail operators to identify practical ways in which rail operators can engage with other groups of potential users, such as couriers and delivery drivers, where it may not be realistic to expect the owner or occupier of the land on which a private crossing is situated to provide briefings in advance on its safe use.

Question 5

What is your view of the costs for placing signs that we have used in this document? What are the cost impacts of different timescales for replacing signage? Are there any other comments you wish to make about costs, either generally or in relation to your organisation?

The consultation responses demonstrated considerable concern among some respondents about the costs associated with introducing the new signs.

Of those respondents who replied to this question, over 50% expressed concern about the potential costs. While these responses varied, most of those who expressed concern commented that the overall cost of installing multiple signs across a section of track would be high, and that this could have a disproportionate impact on operators’ budgets compared to the benefits of reduced risk provided by the new signage.

Respondents, particularly those from the heritage rail industry, were particularly concerned about the financial impact on heritage operators of installing the new signage. Many of these respondents questioned whether the impact upon heritage operators had been fully appreciated, particularly in the light of the effects of protracted enforced closure during the Covid-19 pandemic. The responses to this question were similar in this respect to those to the questions of timelines (Question 2). Some respondents suggested that the government should provide financial support to heritage operators to help with installing the new signage in the required timescales.

Several respondents queried the cost estimate contained in the consultation document, which estimated a cost of around £2,000 per sign at simpler crossings and £4,000 at more complex ones, based on prices obtained from Network Rail. Respondents questioned whether these costs factored in the costs of installing the equipment associated with the signs (such as posts) and the impact of inflation. Concerns were also expressed that the figures did not factor in the costs associated with installing these signs at public crossings or the cost of replacing the signs at sites where specific geotechnical conditions would lead to their early expiry.

Network Rail also noted that their ongoing modernising maintenance programme could impact on available resources and timescales. They, therefore, proposed that this task is not undertaken by their maintainer as a business-as-usual activity, but instead should be subject to ring-fenced funding to avoid jeopardising the timescales for replacing the signage nationally.

Government response

We accept that the requirement to place the new signs at private level crossings by 2029 will impose additional costs on rail operators. While the majority of these costs will be borne by Network Rail, we recognise that there will also be costs for other operators, including those operating heritage railways. As set out in our response to Question 2, we are clear that the need to ensure the continued safety of people who use these crossings, through the timely introduction of this new signage, justifies the additional cost to operators of installing it.

Having reviewed the estimated costs, and in further discussion with Network Rail, we believe the figures set out in our consultation document give a realistic estimate of the costs of installing the new signage, including the expenses associated with placing the signage such as installing poles. During the consultation exercise we also received an update from Network Rail of the number of private crossings on their estate, an increase from 2237 to 2506. This, therefore, increases the range of costs for installation to between £5 million and £10 million on their estate.

We particularly note the concerns expressed about the impact on heritage rail operators and the requests for government funding to help such operators introduce the new signs. We recognise the very real financial predicament currently faced by many heritage rail operators. However, the government has a duty to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent appropriately and does not, as a matter of principle, provide funding to enable private businesses to meet the cost of complying with safety regulation. It would set an unfair precedent to the sector itself, and to other private or volunteer-run organisations, if the government were to fund the heritage rail sector to help it to meet its obligations in this way.

We note the concerns expressed about additional costs associated with installing this signage at public crossings. We expect operators will need to install these signs at public footpath and bridleway crossings by securing an authorisation to do so from the department. However, these costs are not imposed directly by this legislation and, therefore, have not been quantified in the assessment of these regulations. Existing authorisations for public crossings will remain valid until they are life-expired (unless they were time-limited when they were received).

While we note the concerns raised about the additional cost of replacing signs due to local geotechnical conditions, we are confident that the proposals will not increase costs in this respect. As is the case with the current signs, operators will continue to need to take account of ground conditions when placing the new signage and to factor in any increased maintenance or replacement costs where these conditions are likely to require this.

On this basis, we consider that the updated cost estimates set out in response to question 5 are realistic, and that the additional cost burden on rail operators is reasonable and justified on grounds of safety. We also consider that the timescales we are setting for the rollout of the new signs will give operators the time needed to plan and budget for these changes, and to spread the costs over several years, without having to seek specific or additional public funding support – albeit in doing so, we would ask that heritage operators do take action as soon as possible on crossings where they consider the risk to be greatest.

Question 6

What are your views on whether the department should publish guidance to help level crossing operators apply for the authorisation of non-prescribed signs?

Of the responses received to this question, 71% were in favour of the department publishing guidance on the authorisation of non-prescribed signs.

However, many respondents asked for the guidance to be focused more broadly. These respondents suggested that the guidance should cover the expected signage arrangements at typical crossings and highlight what should be done for blind and partially sighted level crossing users. We also received a suggestion that guidance should be given on the enforcement responsibilities under these regulations.

Respondents suggested various formats for this guidance, including modelling it on a traffic advisory leaflet (TAL). TALs are published by the department and provide information and guidance for using traffic equipment and implementing traffic regulations and policies.

Government response

We accept that there is a clear appetite for guidance of this kind. We will publish guidance on this as soon as reasonably possible after the new regulations become law.

The exact contents and format of this guidance will be confirmed and will be informed by discussions with level crossing operators, the ORR, as the safety regulator, and other interested parties. Nonetheless, we intend to make clear in the guidance our expectation that authorisation of non-prescribed signage will be rare, and that the signage prescribed in the new regulations will be suitable in most circumstances.

Question 7

Are there any other comments that you wish to make in relation to these proposals?

A number of themes emerged from the comments we received in response to this question in the first consultation. We have also included in our summary of responses to this question any substantive comments made as part of the second consultation that were unrelated to the sign designs. We have summarised each of the main themes, and our response to it, under the sub-headings below.

Welsh language considerations

The most common response to this question was to request that these signs are made in other languages, particularly Welsh. Several respondents asked for Welsh-language variants of the signs to be prescribed in the regulations or asserted that Welsh-language variants would be required at crossings in Wales. Several respondents cited the Welsh Language Act 1993 and Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 as providing a legal requirement for signs to be made available in Welsh. Some respondents raised concerns about the costs operators would incur to place 2 sets of signs if Welsh signs were also required, with one respondent suggesting these would “effectively double”. Several respondents questioned the practicality of seeking authorisation for placing individual Welsh-language variants, suggesting it would place an additional burden on operators in Wales. Similar comments were made about the provision of signage in other languages.

During the second consultation, when we confirmed our intention to prescribe a set of signs in Welsh (more information is below), several respondents suggested the signs should be bilingual within a single sign plate, rather than having 2 separate signs containing English and Welsh.

Government response

Under the 1996 Regulations, signs have not been available in Welsh, unless specifically authorised. However, as indicated in the second consultation, we fully recognise that in Wales, the Welsh language should have parity with English and that Welsh speakers should be able to read signs in their primary language. We, therefore, agree that for private crossings in Wales, legislation should also specify a set of signs in Welsh, so that these can be placed alongside the signs contained in this consultation. This approach is in line with the principles of the Department for Transport’s Welsh language scheme and with the government’s manifesto pledge to support the Welsh Government’s ambition for a million Welsh speakers by 2050.

We intend to consult on the Welsh language signs as soon as possible, for inclusion in a separate set of regulations that would apply in Wales. The development of these Welsh-language signs may take some time, as it is critical that any signage provides clear and safe instructions to users of level crossings. We will need to ensure consistency between the signs in both languages, and consideration will need to be given to the interface between the 2 language signs at a crossing. Further research and testing may be required prior to bringing the designs to consultation, but the department is currently aiming to legislate for Welsh signage at private level crossings in 2024.

In the meantime, operators may continue to apply to the department for authorisation to place Welsh language signs at an individual crossing. Operators who require guidance on using this route should contact PrivateLX.Authorisations@dft.gov.uk.

Barriers and gates

One respondent noted the department’s intention not to carry out any significant amendments to the Schedules 2 and 3 in the regulations, which prescribe certain rules for barriers and gates respectively. This respondent argued that Schedules 2 and 3 are highly prescriptive, resulting in stricter rules for private crossings than for public ones. The respondent also thought this could restrict innovation and cause problems at crossings that cannot open outwards from the railway. The respondent enquired prior to submitting a formal response whether Schedule 3 could be amended to allow gates to open onto the railway in certain circumstances.

Government response

The government notes the comment related to its intention to retain Schedules 2 and 3 from the existing 1996 regulations, and particularly the request to amend Schedule 3 to allow for gates to open onto the railway. However, we believe that amending Schedule 3 in this way would not be appropriate for safety reasons, as gates opening across a railway introduces unnecessary risk.

Moreover, amending Schedule 3 in this way would require an amendment to Section 68 of The Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (“the 1845 Act”), which contains the requirement to open gates away from the railway and is primary legislation. Amendments to this type of legislation are made through an Act of Parliament, whereas the proposed Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 are being made through a delegated power under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA 1992).

The parameters of this delegated power are limited and would not allow modifications to be made to the 1845 Act under these regulations. It would not, therefore, be possible to use these regulations to allow gates to open across the railway, even by using an authorisation from the Secretary of State, as this would breach the 1845 Act.

The authorisation process may be used in circumstances where the regulations prevent new technology or innovations from being installed at private crossings. However, Network Rail have assured us that the current Schedules cover most likely circumstances.

Consultees

Other responses to this question focused on the ‘List of those consulted’ available in Annex D of the consultation document provided with the first consultation. Respondents to the first consultation suggested that a number of additional organisations should be included in this list, such as the British Transport Police, Royal Mail and utility companies.

Government response

As indicated in our overview of the consultation’s methodology, both consultations were conducted according to the Cabinet Office consultation principles. The first consultation was made public for 8 weeks, which the government considers provided adequate time and consideration for any organisation to respond, as per the principles. The list of consultees in Annex D of the first consultation document was published for transparency purposes.

We did not publish such a list during the second consultation, although we did contact the same organisations again and the additional organisations suggested by consultees during the first consultation. Moreover, Annex D did not provide an exhaustive list of the organisations that were made aware of the consultation through other means, such as media engagement, stakeholder workshops and email bulletins. We are, therefore, confident that all organisations with a potential interest were given ample opportunity to respond during the consultation process.

The equipment available at level crossings

Several responses had questions or made suggestions about the signage and equipment arrangements at individual crossings.

Government response

We cannot advise or answer questions on the optimal arrangements of signage or equipment at individual crossings. This would be a matter for the relevant operator, based on a risk-based approach that takes into account the particular profile of the crossing and any relevant guidance, such as that published by the ORR. For any specific concerns about a particular crossing, the government would advise speaking to the operator of an individual crossing in the first instance.

Placement of signs in areas of natural beauty

Some respondents suggested that the placement of signs in national parks and other places of significant natural beauty is contentious. They suggested that consideration should be given to the impact of the size and volume of signs on such sites.

Government response

As set out previously in this document, we believe that these changes are needed to ensure the continued safety of our railways and those who interact with them. During the consultation process we contacted organisations with an interest in preserving areas of natural beauty, to give them a chance to provide their views. As previously mentioned, based upon consultee feedback received, we have modified the proposals to reduce the size and number of signs as far as possible. We consider that the proposals provide a fair balance between the need to provide safe use instructions for users and the need to preserve areas of natural beauty. If there are planning objections to the size of the signs at specific crossings, authorisations can be sought from the Department.

Existing railway orders

A respondent raised a query about how these signs interacted with existing railway Orders that are in place at certain level crossings.

Government response

In these rare instances, the operator should contact the ORR to discuss the situation. They can be reached at contact.pct@orr.gov.uk.

Next steps

We have set out our response in this document to the comments received from this consultation exercise. We now intend to legislate for the new signage contained within the image diagrams document on the GOV.UK home page for this consultation, with an expected coming-into-force date later in 2023.

We will write to level crossing operators, setting out its expectations in relation to the timeframe for placing the new signs at private level crossings, as well as its view on the term ‘authorised user’, and will also provide guidance on authorisations of non-prescribed signs as soon as practicable.

As previously mentioned, work on legislating for Welsh signage will begin immediately but, owing to the need to ensure that any signage provides clear and safe instructions to users of level crossings in a consistent manner, development of this signage may take some time. On this basis, we aim to legislate for this development in 2024.