merlodlliw
Established Member
This letter was sent out today by Rail Minister Edwina Hart to all AMs, It was sent to me by my North Wales listed AM Aled Roberts.
-
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!
Cambrian gets £7.5 million to close crossings
- Thread starter merlodlliw
- 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
BBC article about planning go-ahead for this work published in February:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-26085025
I wonder to what extent ERTMS has influenced the location of Network Rail's spending on this one - remembering the project to close all of the level crossings south of Doncaster on the East Coast Mainline, seemingly in time for ERTMS roll out there.
Its noted that a significant portion of NR's crossing closure budget has been allocated in this announcement, then think of the funds being expended on the ECML project - surely this must represent a very significant portion of the total budget for crossing closures. My observation is, given that the Cambrian works represent "going back" post installation of ERTMS, are there particular reasons for that (issues and incompatibilities between ERTMS and crossings) or as you say is it just a sensible move (in which case why do it after ERTMS has been installed?).
That's a good point. It's hard to see otherwise how the Cambrian Coast could be anywhere near as high a priority as the ECML !
Alternatively, it could be a case of NR's budget chasing the match funding.
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,501
The East Coast Main Line situation is different since ERTMS and closure of level crossings are prerequisites to raising the permissible speed above 125 mph. This does not apply on the Cambrian Line.
Gareth Marston
Established Member
Think you've got it there.
arabianights
Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 150
The roads were there (in almost all cases) first.
Motorists weren't.
arabianights
Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 150
This is true (and I double checked as I thought motorist was a term pre dating motor - apparently not).
But road users were. And not only motorists use level crossings.
But the majority of incidents at level crossings are caused by misuse by road users, so it is only sensible that the cost for closing them should be met in greater part from the roads budget.
More to the point, the majority of benefit to LX closures is to motorists, through eliminating wait times an reduced injuries. And those gaining the most benefit should pay the most.
arabianights
Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 150
If the railway wasn't there, then there wouldn't be any incidents at all
Seriously - I'm not paticularly interested in having this debate, I was speaking in jest. But to my mind the pressure regarding the safety of level crossings (which, once you stop thinking of them in comparison to other danger sources on the rails and compare them to general sources of danger in real life, are actually very safe, at least the public road ones) is coming from "society" and therefore "society" should pay. And if it balks at the cost, maybe it should find something better to do with its money - on a pound per life saved basis, the railway is actually far too safe as it is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What about the benefit of paying less road tax if they don't happen?
If the railway wasn't there, then there wouldn't be any incidents at all
Seriously - I'm not paticularly interested in having this debate, I was speaking in jest. But to my mind the pressure regarding the safety of level crossings (which, once you stop thinking of them in comparison to other danger sources on the rails and compare them to general sources of danger in real life, are actually very safe, at least the public road ones) is coming from "society" and therefore "society" should pay. And if it balks at the cost, maybe it should find something better to do with its money - on a pound per life saved basis, the railway is actually far too safe as it is.
Fair analysis. In a previous job I would go to councils to persuade them to help pay from LX upgrades or closures. They just weren't interested.
If you think about it, level crossings are just about the safest part of the road network - usually well lit, flashing lights, sirens, extra markings on the roads, extra signage, sometimes cameras, barriers etc.
Councils get far better net improvement in road safety by putting traffic calming in residential areas or outside schools. So they prioritise accordingly.
brianthegiant
Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2010
- Messages
- 588
will the xing closures enable any linespeed increase or is the railway benefit purely reliability?
That's certainly true, however the reality of the situation is that the powers that be expect the railway to exist in a higher state of safety than almost most comparable situations. And this is not a frivolous argument as money coming out of the railway budget on level crossing closures can't then be spent on other railway improvements, such as capacity enhancement or renewal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A very good point that I hadn't even considered.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
It is very obvious from some of the replies on here that many haven't bothered to look at a map!! The area around Talerddig is RURAL and a lot of the crossings in question are small and not highly used, BUT there are a lot of them and some of them have resulted in accidents and fatalities.
Getting rid of many of them is not only going to make the line safer for everyone but also possibly quicker and it is also going to make the signaller's life at Machy much easier.
Getting rid of many of them is not only going to make the line safer for everyone but also possibly quicker and it is also going to make the signaller's life at Machy much easier.
There are many crossings in the area and most are UWC (user worked, presumably private rights of way). There are a number small changes in maximum speed along the section and it's at least possible that some of those are due to sighting issues at the crossings, although it appears each crossing is also fitted with telephones which could represent a high workload for signallers. Removing some crossings might allow a small increase in and more consistency of speed through the area which could be critical for single line section times between crossing loops for planning an hourly service.
merlodlliw
Established Member
It has a lot to do with match funding,I am impressed with the information about rail being put out by Welsh Government now, but how many AMs pass it onto constituents, we are lucky in North Wales to have two very pro rail listed AMs who pass on the information Aled Roberts & Mark Isherwood.
It is of course an election year and a lot of canvassing about the Cambrian Extras has been evident by both Welsh farming unions (FUW & NFUC).
Gareth Marston
Established Member
A number of people have got the impression that the local conservatives in Montgomryshire see level crossings as the primary and most important rail issue per se. The local AM has certainly asked questions in Senedd etc
merlodlliw
Established Member
Interesting thoughts, pleased to hear the local AM is speaking out.
Arglwydd Golau
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2011
- Messages
- 1,421
Not clear whether he is speaking out on behalf of the railway or on behalf of his farming constituents (typical Conservative supporters) who, lest we forget, will be out to make some money out of this!
Gareth Marston
Established Member
The MP runs a farm and the AM's family an agricultural supply business.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
We have to remember the ROC agenda everything is suppose to migrate to one centre in Cardiff by the end of the 2020's including the Cambrian, they don't want to be answering phones from UWC's all day long as they'd have to employ extra staff and cutting staff numbers and costs are the agenda.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As rail infrastructure is not devolved to Wales any £ spent by WG on it is technically road money.
brianthegiant
Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2010
- Messages
- 588
to play 'devils' advocate a little here, it's a very rural constituency and most small and medium sized farms operate on extremely tight margins due to monopoly on food retailing by supermarket chains. Any other business owner would reasonably be expected to lobby very heavily if their day to day operations were to be affected by a crossing closure.
Gareth Marston
Established Member
A letter appeared in the local rag a few years back with a person complaining about the prospect of an hourly service effecting his business as he had bought land next to the line near Caerhowell. He was concerned that the noise from the extra trains would effect his animals. He had recently bought land for a horse stabling/stud farm.
A letter appeared the next week from the chair of the local RUG pointing out that the plans for enhanced services had been public domain for some years and hadn't the businessman done due diligence about his land purchase it was also pointed out that the line had been there 150 years and surprisingly trains ran on it.
Today The horses don't bat an eyelid when trains come by and never have done. Just because some people can only see their own narrow agenda doesn't mean we have to pander to them.
brianthegiant
Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2010
- Messages
- 588
I'm not talking about noise, I'm talking about viable farms being split in half so that the workload of checking & feeding livestock on a daily basis is increased with a real economic impact.
I'm a daily rail user and I have relatives in farming so I can see both sides of the argument here (as it happens my Uncle is facing a crossing closure in the near future). So I don't quite see it as a black & white NR=good, farmers=bad scenario.
One would hope there is an agreed process for independent assessment of the economic impact of crossing closures and compensation arising.
I'm a daily rail user and I have relatives in farming so I can see both sides of the argument here (as it happens my Uncle is facing a crossing closure in the near future). So I don't quite see it as a black & white NR=good, farmers=bad scenario.
One would hope there is an agreed process for independent assessment of the economic impact of crossing closures and compensation arising.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Very few farms will be "split in half".
I think that many of the crossings in question are on access tracks to the main "abode" and it looks like they will be replaced by a short "road" diversion to the nearest bridge or "proper" level crossing. In some cases it will probably make the farmers job easier!
It will certainly make everyone's life safer, and sorry that is the most important consideration.
- Status