Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 11,859
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Closure of the level crossing between Dalwhinnie and Ben Alder estate
- Thread starter Frankton Junct
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
alf
On Moderation
Yesterday a walking friend took a look at the locked crossing for me.
He reports that whilst the road gate has been fortified to deter climbers the miles of fencing on either side are mostly simple 4 strand wire which even the most inexpert sedentary city dweller can climb through, out of sight of any camera focused on the crossing.
A poster upstream amused quite a few of us by insisting that a Network Rail manager would go to prison if he failed to stop up the crossing to walkers- despite no Rail manager ever having even a £1 fine because of an accident at a crossing that was his responsibility.
So does that same poster now claim the local NR manager will go to prison for failing to stop walkers climbing the insecure wire fences either side of the crossing when any fool can see that is the inevitable consequence of trying to stop experienced long distance walkers & day trippers from getting to & from their Munro or their walk?
He reports that whilst the road gate has been fortified to deter climbers the miles of fencing on either side are mostly simple 4 strand wire which even the most inexpert sedentary city dweller can climb through, out of sight of any camera focused on the crossing.
A poster upstream amused quite a few of us by insisting that a Network Rail manager would go to prison if he failed to stop up the crossing to walkers- despite no Rail manager ever having even a £1 fine because of an accident at a crossing that was his responsibility.
So does that same poster now claim the local NR manager will go to prison for failing to stop walkers climbing the insecure wire fences either side of the crossing when any fool can see that is the inevitable consequence of trying to stop experienced long distance walkers & day trippers from getting to & from their Munro or their walk?
TSG
Member
Network Rail corporately have been fined large amounts on a number of occasions. For that reason, personal accountabilities have been made far clearer. This has two effects. Firstly, if something goes wrong as a result of an individual's actions or inactions it would be easier to secure their conviction as an individual. Secondly, partly as a consequence of that first effect, people who are accountable individually are very mindful of that accountability. The argument that a railway manager has never been convicted is like saying that because somebody hasn't jumped off a particular cliff to their death, it must be safe to jump off it.
A fence does not imply that this is a safe place to cross. A crossing does.
Justin Smith
Member
Does anyone know the answer to the above question ?
In answer to : "NR should concentrate on actual risks as evidenced by real incidents rather than theoretical risks".
I'm absolutely certain they have not.
Last edited:
It has already been answered. the crossing at this location is double track.
When you say you're certain, have you been present at an NR risk assessment where they've deliberately ignored data in order to reach their conclusion?
Justin Smith
Member
Sorry, are we saying it is in fact a single track ?
No, there are 2 tracks, one for each direction. The Up line used to be available for movements in both directions, but that has been removed/disconnected, possibly as a result of a derailment not too long ago.
Justin Smith
Member
I know the trend these days, stuff is banned (other than on the roads) out of all proportion to the risks and that is especially so on the railways, including on heritage laines, everything from banning opening windows to banning shed visits to banning lineside permits, and yes, shutting crossings.
I have asked the question more than once, if a risk assessment has been done on this crossing what is the approximate risk of a serious accident at this (or any other) crossing in any one year.
I will bet you £10 now they have not researched that question because they know the answer would be hardly any chance but that would not fit in with their agenda.
So only one operational line then, thus it's even more ludicrous to shut the crossing "for safety reasons".
You keep saying 'you know' but don't provide any evidence at all to back up your claims. Especially as Opening Windows, Shed Visits and Lineside permits are perfectly permissible on heritage iines, where it is a matter of company policy whether to offer them or not.
No, 2 operational lines, 1 for each direction.
That’s a big claim. Unless you are in the NR Scotland operational risk team, how can you be so sure?
I’ll take that bet. Because each and every level crossing risk assessment produces the answer to that question. Of course you’d know that if you actually understood how level crossing risk assessment works, and wouldn’t have made the bet. To save you the bother of having to set up payment to me, please just pop a tenner in the next Cancer Research shop / collection tin you see, that would mean a lot to me.
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Your 'elf and safety gone mad fetish is out of control again.
It doesn't matter what the truth is. You don't care. You wont like any answer that doesn't reinforce your own opinion.
The line is double track. Until the recent derailment there was a crossover to allow down trains calling at Dalwhinnie to use the up platform, so that passengers didn't have to cross the bridge, essentially making the station PRM compliant. North of the station it's single track.
However I don't understand Bald Rick. There is no history of regular misuse of the crossing resulting in dangerous situations, so clearly the risk is theoretical, unlike so many crossings elsewhere.
However I don't understand Bald Rick. There is no history of regular misuse of the crossing resulting in dangerous situations, so clearly the risk is theoretical, unlike so many crossings elsewhere.
haggishunter
Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 349
The issue here is the case Network Rail are putting forward, this crossing hasn't been closed to the public because in Network Rail's mind it was never open. Thus it would appear that when Network Rail refer to misuse, they mean ANY use by pedestrians and cyclists. British Transport Police appear to be of the view that NR are in the wrong, these crossings are private only for vehicular use and such signage is always on the vehicle gates not pedestrian gates.
The point about Land Reform Act not applying to the railway itself misses a point, if private crossings are restricted to only authorised users of the road either side of the crossing, then the public on foot or bike (and for that matter on horseback too) are authorised users of the road in law. In this particularly case it also seems Network Rail might be trying to exploit the fact the railway itself is the boundary between the Highland Council and Cairngorms National Park Authority responsibility for core paths - hence it is a breakpoint, it is the only circular core path for the local community.
By isolating the recently upgraded carpark on Ben Alder Road which was the natural starting point for cyclists and walkers, more use will be made of limited parking nearer the underpass and that is used by people accessing the loch with kayaks / canoes etc as it's a direct and easy access to the water, worth noting here access to open water is on the same legal basis as open land.
More from mountain users perspective can be had from the relevant thread on Walk Highlands which doesn't require a login to read: https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=107005&sk=t&sd=a .
Also an older article from 2015 on WalkHighlands regarding Network Rail's view of public use of such crossings:
Whether or not a historic right of way or core path exists across the railway at this particular user operated level crossing is something of a moot point, because of the wider implications of the precedent being set here for access to many mountains and wider areas of open land and water. If Network Rail were to persist in the view that any public pedestrian use of user operated level crossings or foot crossings is criminal trespass on the railway then the railway becomes a major impediment to exercising access rights for outdoor / mountain recreation. If Network Rail is right in law (and that seems to be a matter of dispute) then the law requires to be changed.
The point about Land Reform Act not applying to the railway itself misses a point, if private crossings are restricted to only authorised users of the road either side of the crossing, then the public on foot or bike (and for that matter on horseback too) are authorised users of the road in law. In this particularly case it also seems Network Rail might be trying to exploit the fact the railway itself is the boundary between the Highland Council and Cairngorms National Park Authority responsibility for core paths - hence it is a breakpoint, it is the only circular core path for the local community.
By isolating the recently upgraded carpark on Ben Alder Road which was the natural starting point for cyclists and walkers, more use will be made of limited parking nearer the underpass and that is used by people accessing the loch with kayaks / canoes etc as it's a direct and easy access to the water, worth noting here access to open water is on the same legal basis as open land.
More from mountain users perspective can be had from the relevant thread on Walk Highlands which doesn't require a login to read: https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=107005&sk=t&sd=a .
Also an older article from 2015 on WalkHighlands regarding Network Rail's view of public use of such crossings:
Whether or not a historic right of way or core path exists across the railway at this particular user operated level crossing is something of a moot point, because of the wider implications of the precedent being set here for access to many mountains and wider areas of open land and water. If Network Rail were to persist in the view that any public pedestrian use of user operated level crossings or foot crossings is criminal trespass on the railway then the railway becomes a major impediment to exercising access rights for outdoor / mountain recreation. If Network Rail is right in law (and that seems to be a matter of dispute) then the law requires to be changed.
Many people don’t, it’s quite normal!
How do you know there is no history of misuse? The very latest surveys, risk assessment and other data don’t appear to have been released.
GlitterUnicorn
Member
To summarise, it feels a bit like Network Rail are playing some silly games here.
On paper they claim that private crossings are not open to the public to cross on foot, and that everyone who does so without authority is trespassing.
In practice there are 100+ "private" level crossings in regular, unchallenged, use by the public in Scotland. To the point that most members of the public aren't able to identify the difference between a private and a public foot crossing - I was fairly stunned to realise that apparently I've committed trespass a dozen or so times in the last couple of years according to NR's interpretation of the situation.
Network Rail need to recognise the reality of the situation. Not just their legal fiction. They need to work with landowners, stakeholders and walkers to find a better solution.
On paper they claim that private crossings are not open to the public to cross on foot, and that everyone who does so without authority is trespassing.
In practice there are 100+ "private" level crossings in regular, unchallenged, use by the public in Scotland. To the point that most members of the public aren't able to identify the difference between a private and a public foot crossing - I was fairly stunned to realise that apparently I've committed trespass a dozen or so times in the last couple of years according to NR's interpretation of the situation.
Network Rail need to recognise the reality of the situation. Not just their legal fiction. They need to work with landowners, stakeholders and walkers to find a better solution.
Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 11,859
Compare and contrast the relative riskiness of this particular crossing at Dalwhinnie with others around the GB network, such as, ahem, ones in the East Anglia area.
Justin Smith
Member
It is not a "fetish" it is a fact, and the fact NR are trying to close a load of crossings is all the proof you should need.
Opening windows are, I believe, already banned on all mainline trains and will effectively be so on Heritage lines by, I think, 2023.
Can anyone on here give me any stats collected by NR as to the calculated chance of anyone being seriously injured or killed on this (or any other) crossing in any one year.
I would be amazed if they could.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I am sure they could. There is no point though: You will simply dismiss them.
Would they?
Yes. Take Tibberton crossing in Worcestershire, which has (broadly) the same level of risk as Dalwhinnie. It has an FWI (Fatalaities and Weighted Injuries index) of 0.000106, which is the equivalent of one fatality every 9,400 years, or 1 injury every 94 years. Dalwhinnie will be of the same order of magnitude.
Of course, at any one crossing, the risk is relatively small. But there are a lot of crossings and the risks add up on a network wide basis; on the network as a whole the risk is 12 fatalities a year IIRC. Note this doesn’t just apply to pedestrians and in motor vehicles, but also the risk to those on board the trains. Note also that this number is falling, despite increased road and rail traffic (pre Covid), because of NRs Level Crossing safety programme.
Final point, whilst the risk of a fatality at Tibberton is 1 in 9,400 years, that one year come around in 2019.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
The fact that NR are closing crossings at the behest of the RAIB and the ORR does not prove your incorrect assumption.
Opening windows are NOT banned on heritage lines. I was taking photos out of the window of an L & B train the week before last.
I suggest you look at the numerous RAIB reports concerning incidents at level crossings, and NR do publish figures; perhaps you should do your own research.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Is Tibberton crossing comparable? As far as I can remember it is on a metalled country road and isn't a User Worked Crossing.
I know that at my old Box, where we had 3 UWC's one has since been closed, following discussions with the land owner.
If someone says that trains are really noisy I then know they have little to no relevant experience of the railway…..
As others have said there are risk assessments carried out for every level crossing, they will take into account history of abuse, average amount of crossings requested (vehicles obviously), sighting distances will be checked, phones tested among many other checks but that gives you an outline of what is done by the relevant level crossing manager. Now something hasn’t met the minimum threshold somewhere. It won’t have been shut for the ****s and giggles.
maybe there were persons, lacking common sense, expecting to be able to hear a train and get out its way in plenty time but ended up in a near miss….
That statistic for Tibberton doesn't mean you have to wait 9400 years. How many crossings didn't have fatalities that year? Or any recent year?
The pragmatic reality is surely that crossings - in the real world - are safe. The majority of fatalities on the UK railway system don't involve people inadvertently getting killed at crossings.
There are much more significant risks in peoples' daily lives.
So I'm guessing that more fatalities occur at stations? If that is the case then shouldn't there be a focus on closing more stations?
Guessing does not a risk assessment make.
Hmmmmmmmmm.........
I'm guessing there's rather a lot of guessing involved - but it's dressed up as assumptions and extrapolations and interpretations - and references to other peoples' assumptions and extrapolations and interpretations.
That doesn't answer question though. So I'm intrigued ... are there more fatalities that occur at stations?
Excluding suicides, yes.
There have been 103 accidental fatalities at Level Crossings in the last 15 years. Most of these were pedestrians.
In the same period there have been 90 accidental passenger fatalities from all causes across all parts of the network. This includes on board trains as well as at stations, and includes those who died due to criminal activity, ‘contact with an object’, platform / train interface, slips, trips and falls, and train accidents. The data does not delineate between at station or on board, it is a certainty that many of the 90 were not at stations.
I agree with most of that, but I would have thought that if it was shown to be a right of way that would make a difference, because there would be no question of Network Rail being allowed to close it without either providing a bridge or going through the proper procedures for diverting a highway. Crossings that aren't on rights of way would still be at risk.
The Scottish Rights of Way Society say that it is a right of way; some might say 'they would say that', but on the other hand I presume they know what they're talking about.
[Edited to correct a typo]
Last edited:
GlitterUnicorn
Member
Rights of way in Scotland are defined not by a register but by a set of conditions. Any route that meets these conditions is by law a right of way.
Since unlike England there's no definitive map of these rights of way, whether this route is a right of way, and whether the level crossing is a part of it is contentious. The Rights of Way society regard it as one, and as they're the kind of people who really enjoy getting stuck into these arcane points of law I tend to believe them. But, for a definitive answer the matter would have to go to court.
Network Rail might argue that it isn't a right of way, or if it is, the level crossing is not/should not be a part of it. They may also be hoping that no-one will feel strongly enough to put up the cash to challenge them. But also it seems that they've managed to upset half a dozen different walking/land access organisations, the local estate, council, and a few other people. It may not end well for them.
- Status