LEVEL RAILWAY CROSSINGS

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1075, 7 December 1877, Page 3

LEVEL RAILWAY CROSSINGS

r From the Melbourne "Argus."] The terrible accident near tho Barnawatha railway station, by which the man William Howard and his wife came to an untimely and horrible end, will direct public attention to the defects of our level crossing system, and will, we may hope, lead to an instant reform. Whether gates are required at all at level crossings is a moot question. In other countries people coming to a railway need no elaborate machinery to prevent their petting in the way of locomotives, but are at least as careful in keeping clear of the train as on the roads they are cautious enough to avoid collisions with the car and the omnibus. Experience leads to the belief that no accidents whatever would occur, while it is sickening to reflect upon the slaughter which is going on among the Victorian gatekeepers. Death after death has to be chronicled. Again, with the trains. If perchance they did come into ci intact with a horse or a drunken man during the year, what would that peril he in comparison with the risk they are now called upon to run of crashing through formidable wooden barriers, which ought to be open, but which from time to time are found to be shut Y Of the amount wasted in salaries to gatekeepers we say nothing, but if an hon. member will move for a return on the subject he will find that it is to be reckoned by tens of thousands of pounds. If, however, official prejudice is too stiff to be overcome, the public has a right to insist that the gate system shall be worked with a maximum of intelligence instead of as at present with the utmost possible extent of stupidity. The practice is when trains are not expected for any length of time to shut the gates across the railway, and so barricade the track, and any special train, such as the Californiau mail train on Sunday, has to take its chance. The peril is obvious, ajad the oiily -wouder is that

] accidents are not more numerous and more lamentable in their consequences than they have been hitherto. Common sense requires that the line should never be obstructed. The rul should be that the gates should be closeri against vehicles, which they can keep out without injury to any one, and not againsi trains, which they are powerless to resist except at the risk of a catastrophe. No doubt it lightens labour to let traflic go free occa sionally, as we think it should go always, but if it is necessary for the gatekeepers to be off duty, why not let the travellers open the gates for themselves ? The danger is that the barrier would be left standing across the track, but this is no more than the peril which exists at present, and a fine, such as is imposed in Tasmania, would go a long way to make the carelessness unknown. Moreover, it could be obviated by the simple plan of making the gates open outwards, to meet such cases. We contend for the principle that no barrier ever ought to exist unwatched across the rails. The public which uses the lines has a right to insist —and we hope will insist —upon the rigid observance of the rule, "Keep the track open."