Talk:Level crossing

Move-protection

Due to this article being high-risk, I would like to propose a move protection. If I can get at least three aggreements, then I'll see. Lomrjyo 19:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomrjyo (talk • contribs)

Don't think it's necessary. If anybody has an objection to this particular variant being used as title (note: of all English-speaking countries, the UK probably has the most extensive railway network, shouldn't come as a surprise...), they are free to object to it using the usual means, but I don't think there's grounds for protection at this stage. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Grammar needs to be fix 205.121.71.242 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Images

The many images of actual crossings could be moved to a gallery to reduce clutter and encourage a greater diversity. In outback New South Wales many highway crossings are made "dogleg" style so dozy drivers drift off into the "bush", rather than collide with a train. I'd add a picture but don't want to extend an already overlong article. Doug butler (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate you stopping and thinking about if there are too many photos, instead of just blindly adding more. Photos might be a better fit at Level crossings by country which was created to deal with the excessive length of this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Horn

No mention is made of the train's required horn signal ("q" in Morse code) when approaching a crossing. 71.219.1.220 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That’s only in certain jurisdictions in certain countries - doesn’t really belong in a generalised article like this. Danners430 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

In the UK, the drivers normally sound a morse "M", occasionally a "O", but both tones of the horn must be used. The relevant part of the rule book may be found at GERT8000-TW8. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Unmanned or unstaffed

Hi. User:AmosWolfe has been changing Unmanned to Unstaffed across a variety of articles that discuss or mention level crossings. I have asked him why giving him examples in British and Irish references that they are regarded as Unmanned in that country.

I now thought it best to ask the community to get a consensus about this, and decide what we should use.

In the British Cambridge dictionary the description is it's Unmanned . Unstaffed is not currently registered as British English

AmosWolfe says he is changing them as " "unmanned" to "unstaffed" — "Unmanned" typically refers to vehicles that operate without a human operator, like a drone. "Unstaffed" usually describes a place or facility that is without employees, such as an unstaffed railway station"

In Britain the following references show Unmanned as common use: , in railway forums railway technology , in railway forums railway technology , publications and news , publications and news

In India: Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that for level crossings, neither is the correct term… personally I’d suggest “automatic” for those crossings that are controlled automatically and “remotely monitored” (or something similar) for those crossings that are CCTV crossings. The reason for this is that CCTV crossings are still classified as Manned Crossing Barriers or Manned Crossing Gates, despite the person controlling it being potentially hundreds of miles away, so calling them unmanned could lead to confusion. Danners430 (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Network Rail do not use either phrase either. I believe the use unattended. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that that isn't as important however, given on Wikipedia we're writing an encyclopedia for the general reader - as such I would say that the term used doesn't have to be the official or technical term, but rather the best descriptive term (in this situation at least) Danners430 (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

unstaffed is gender neutral Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Just looked at Merriam-Webster and in the US unstaffed isn't a word either Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary includes an entry for "unstaffed" which does not suggest that it is not correct British English; it cites examples of usage in British publications from as early as 1899, though their word frequency data suggests that "unmanned" is currently around four times as frequently used. I don't think any purported distinction in meaning between "unmanned" and "unstaffed" is a good reason for the change: OED defines unstaffed as "Not provided with staff; unmanned." It seems to me that the case for "unstaffed" is that it is gender-neutral and the case for "unmanned" is that it is the more common word. Danners430's alternative suggestion of "automatic" looks like a sensible one to me, and has the virtue of both being ungendered and a more common word than either unmanned or unstaffed. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Level crossings in the United Kingdom lists many categories of crossings, but the terminology relevant to this discussion is:

• Manually controlled
• Automatic
• Trainman operated [although I want that to be "Traincrew-operated", "driver-operated" or at least "Trainman-operated" I haven't looked at what the sources say]
• User worked
• Open

Although the latter two are essentially identical for the purposes of this discussion. Network Rail seem to use "unmanned" exclusively in the phrase "Unmanned Aircraft Systems" (AKA drones), never for a type of level crossing. However, Great Britain is not the world and usage in other countries may vary, I haven't looked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

As per above, it is not used as a technical name, but a common phrase in the UK, and as per English language Indian press. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a {{Use British English}} tag in the article, so whether the wording matches British English is not obviously relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Its not just the article. User:AmosWolfe has been changing any article that mentions Unmanned level crossing. Unmanned as per discussion above seems to have the greater usage, and unstaffed doesn't appear as a word in one British English dictionary nor in a leading US dictionary. So what should we be calling them? Unmanned is the common name. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm still going to advocate for "automatic" where appropriate, but that's my personal thought Danners430 (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The word unstaffed appears in both the Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.) and the New Oxford American Dictionary (3 ed.).

I don't think there is any problem with replacing unmanned with a word or phrase (e.g., "There are no railway employees at this location") that doesn't imply that only men can have these kinds of jobs. MOS:GNL prefers gender-neutral language choices, when that choice is still clear and precise. WP:GNL says "avoids constructions that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes". Manned/unmanned are not desirable word choices according to either the MOS or the GNL essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:GNL is an essay and so is WP:Commonname. Neither are policy but contradict each other because if the common name is not gender neutral, GNL is saying we should change it? If we are saying unmanned doesn't meet GNL, and unstaffed is not the common name, should we then use Automatic as per User:Danners430 has proposed? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Not all unstaffed level crossings are automatic. Some are traincrew operated; some have gates that the road user is expected to operate themselves; some have no gates or barriers at all. Of these last two types, some - but not all - have CCTV monitoring or obstruction detection. There are many variations and combinations - the book Padgett, David (June 2018) [1989]. Munsey, Myles (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 3: Western & Wales (6th ed.). Frome: Trackmaps. p. III. ISBN 978-1-9996271-0-2. has a heading "Level Crossing Abbreviations", listing 24 different types. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Many years ago my formidable junior high school speech teacher was chairman ("Madam Chairman") of her local Daughters of the American Revolution chapter. The term in use now is chair. Times have changed. I refer you to the current online Oxford English Dictionary which states Man was considered until the 20th cent. to include women by implication, though referring primarily to males. It is now frequently understood to exclude women, and is therefore avoided by many people. So this is not a British usage issue. I am old enough to not feel excluded by the use of unmanned, but what should we do for our general readership? StarryGrandma (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s worth summarising the options so far, as well as introducing a few more for consideration:

• Unmanned - the existing status quo, which I believe should be retired.
• Unstaffed - the originally proposed alternative.
• Automatic/Remotely-monitored - @Redrose64 correctly notes that “automatic” can’t be a catch-all term, but I’m thinking where a crossing operates independently of human intervention we can use “automatic”, and use “remotely-monitored” as a catch-all for crossings which are operated with humans in the loop, but without those humans being physically present on site.
• Unsupervised - not my favourite term, but an option nonetheless.
• Unattended - direct replacement for Unmanned
• Train operated - if a crossing isn’t operated by a human, then it’s operated by a train. Suggest “Uncontrolled” for crossings which have no interaction with trains, such as open crossings or user worked crossings with no train approach warning.

Danners430 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we should be more precise and use "automatic", "remotely operated", "train operated" and "uncontrolled" where they apply. We probably need a term for when sources tell us that there is no human on site but do not give details of how it is operated, "unstaffed" I think is my preference for these.

That I think leaves only whether we should use "manned", "staffed", "manually-operated", "manually controlled" or some other term for when the crossing is operated by a human on site with official responsibility for operating the crossing (this could be a crossing keeper, station staff, a signaller or train crew). Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

As i stated earlier, I think Netwirk Rail have used Unattended, which is probably better. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed that - I’ll add it to the list Danners430 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)