• 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!

Abergavenny Station

Status
Not open for further replies.

Envoy

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2014
Messages
2,452
I read that work has started to refurbish the old lattice iron work footbridge at Abergavenny station. Surely, this is a waste of money and what is needed is a new footbridge including lifts? I presume that when the old footbridge is refurbished, that it will be put back yet not allow for overhead wires at some point in the future? Surely, all bridges that need attention (or new) should be built to allow overhead catenary in the future?

I also note that parking is inadequate at Abergavenny and that many commuters use the lay-bys on the A465 and make their way down a steep bank to enter the station from the east. Surely, a decent car park should be provided on the east side of the station?

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/n...gives-update-on-abergavenny-station-upgrades/
Network Rail are restoring the latticed part of the Grade II listed structure having removed it last July after an inspection found the bridge and its staircases to be in disrepair.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Andrew*Debbie

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
315
Location
Llanfairpwllgwyngyll ...
The bridge is grade II listed. Changes require listed building consent.

Are there any real plans to electrify the line? With the cost overruns in CP5 and the cancellation of electrification of Cardiff to Swansea it could be a very long time before Abergavenny sees overhead wires. I didn't notice anything in CP6 but I was looking for signalling upgrades.


=================

The footbridge at our local station looks great after refurbishment.

https://www.networkrailmediacentre....ootbridge-after-refurbishment-and-repair-work
 

Envoy

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2014
Messages
2,452
No plans to electrify The Marches Line. It is possible that a stopping service might run from Abergavenny southwards at some point in the future - which would surely require the re-opening of the disused platform?

It seems crazy to me that an old lattice iron bridge has to be repaired and kept because it is ‘Grade 2 Listed’. Where money should be spent is on putting in a modern bridge with lifts and making sure that it is high enough to accommodate catenary so that if at some point in the future the line is electrified, no additional expense will be incurred. That should be a rule regarding all replacement structures over railways - that they are high enough to accommodate overhead wires. Another ‘rule’ should be that where new bridges cross single track railways that once had double track, that they should allow enough clearance to re-instate the double (or even quad) track.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
No plans to electrify The Marches Line. It is possible that a stopping service might run from Abergavenny southwards at some point in the future - which would surely require the re-opening of the disused platform?

It seems crazy to me that an old lattice iron bridge has to be repaired and kept because it is ‘Grade 2 Listed’. Where money should be spent is on putting in a modern bridge with lifts and making sure that it is high enough to accommodate catenary so that if at some point in the future the line is electrified, no additional expense will be incurred. That should be a rule regarding all replacement structures over railways - that they are high enough to accommodate overhead wires. Another ‘rule’ should be that where new bridges cross single track railways that once had double track, that they should allow enough clearance to re-instate the double (or even quad) track.

In pretty much every case where a non-listed structure is in poor condition, then it will indeed by replaced with a modern structure allowing for overhead wires. That has been going on since at least the early 1970s.

If BR or Railtrack told someone that building a single-track overbridge was fine, then guess what the people building it would do? Build the cheapest option. Hopefully we have moved beyond that kind of thing happening now but on the other side of the coin there are cases where double track-width bridges have been provided over disused trackbeds, just in case a line is ever reinstated - e.g. the Broadway bypass in Worcestershire.

But at Abergavenny the footbridge is a listed structure and, as you say, there is no prospect of early electrification on the route, so Network Rail is not going to bother going to the time and trouble of seeking listed building consent for its removal unless absolutely necessary - no wonder when you can end up in situations like the current fiasco of Steventon bridge in Oxfordshire impeding GWML electrification, because the district council will not grant that consent.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
Apart from the expense, the visual impact of these new structures brings tears to the eyes. Axminster has just such a structure (very convenient with cases and we all appreciate that) but alongside Tite's old station building, it is an eyesore and no mistake. Google maps street view link follows:

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.779...4!1svrwpcTg812WQ1kE2PmmwuA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

One wonders whether the old barrow crossings would be perfectly adequate, if equipped like protected level crossings. If you look at the webcam at Bishops Lydeard and see what happens when a train arrives, you will see what I mean (that could be automated). It is a great pity that planning restrictions did not enforce ensuring that these structures were made to be clad in more sympathetic materials and colours. The bridge structure at Honeybourne is just ghastly. Google maps street view link follows:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.101...4!1s1ZgWVZyBvpwcUtpz6TmMiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 
Last edited:

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,450
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
In pretty much every case where a non-listed structure is in poor condition, then it will indeed by replaced with a modern structure allowing for overhead wires. That has been going on since at least the early 1970s.

If BR or Railtrack told someone that building a single-track overbridge was fine, then guess what the people building it would do? Build the cheapest option. Hopefully we have moved beyond that kind of thing happening now but on the other side of the coin there are cases where double track-width bridges have been provided over disused trackbeds, just in case a line is ever reinstated - e.g. the Broadway bypass in Worcestershire.

But at Abergavenny the footbridge is a listed structure and, as you say, there is no prospect of early electrification on the route, so Network Rail is not going to bother going to the time and trouble of seeking listed building consent for its removal unless absolutely necessary - no wonder when you can end up in situations like the current fiasco of Steventon bridge in Oxfordshire impeding GWML electrification, because the district council will not grant that consent.

Could the original bridge at Abergavenny be raised up on a plinth/base with concrete steps leading to the steps on the bridge (if I am making sense here) to provide clearance?
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
It is worth pointing out that Abergavenny is already accessible - albeit that the use of the barrow crossing requires staff assistance.
 

PMN1

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2013
Messages
43
It is also the subject of an argument over accessibility, if there are no staff available to give assistance then passengers heading towards Newport, Cardiff etc who cannot use the bridge have to go to Hereford then come back. The rail company seems to get a lot of flak over it even though its nothing to do with them.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
Apart from the expense, the visual impact of these new structures brings tears to the eyes. Axminster has just such a structure (very convenient with cases and we all appreciate that) but alongside Tite's old station building, it is an eyesore and no mistake. Google maps street view link follows:

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.779...4!1svrwpcTg812WQ1kE2PmmwuA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

One wonders whether the old barrow crossings would be perfectly adequate, if equipped like protected level crossings. If you look at the webcam at Bishops Lydeard and see what happens when a train arrives, you will see what I mean (that could be automated). It is a great pity that planning restrictions did not enforce ensuring that these structures were made to be clad in more sympathetic materials and colours. The bridge structure at Honeybourne is just ghastly. Google maps street view link follows:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.101...4!1s1ZgWVZyBvpwcUtpz6TmMiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Funny you should mention both Axminster and Honeybourne - the latter bridge dates from the Cotswold Line redoubling scheme. There was much huffing and puffing on the Charlbury town website about the new bridge there, which has long ramps like Honeybourne, and about how Network Rail should have used lifts instead. Then someone posted a link to a picture of Axminster and it all went very quiet after that.

No wonder, as the station at Charlbury is in an AONB and the Brunel building is listed. But a bridge with lifts at Honeybourne would stick out like a sore thumb, as there is nothing taller than a two-storey house in the vicinity. The site did not allow the use of parallel ramps, as seen nearby at Moreton-in-Marsh (though it is still a big lump pf steelwork), while the law requires full access, hence what was built.

The policy is to do everything possible to get people and vehicles off level crossings of any kind and that's not going to change. We've seen too many instances of people being struck by trains that were hidden behind another one. The barriers at Bishops Lydeard are supervised by two people and the idea that everybody will behave themselves without that human presence, pay attention to 'traffic lights' and not try to dodge crossing barriers on railways is disproved on a almost daily basis across the country

Could the original bridge at Abergavenny be raised up on a plinth/base with concrete steps leading to the steps on the bridge (if I am making sense here) to provide clearance?

I doubt that would be acceptable. Sticking it on a plinth would partly defeat the object of it being listed, as you would be changing the setting from it having its feet anchored in the platform surface - and there is no prospect of electrification there anyway, so what would be the point?

Have a look at Ipswich to see how compliant footbridges when suitably constructed, clad and painted can be made to fit in just fine.

It might 'fit in fine' in a large station in an urban setting but try plonking down something that size in more exposed location and it wouldn't fit in no matter what you clad it in. The new bridges at Twyford and Goring & Streatley dominate both stations.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
It is also the subject of an argument over accessibility, if there are no staff available to give assistance then passengers heading towards Newport, Cardiff etc who cannot use the bridge have to go to Hereford then come back. The rail company seems to get a lot of flak over it even though its nothing to do with them.

There is a guard onboard every service thar stops at Abergavenny, and they are trained on how to use the barrow crossing if the booking office is closed.
 

416GSi

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
68
Location
Usk, Monmouthshire
I recall reading somewhere that the foot bridge at this ex GWR station was moved from the ex LNWR Abergavenny Junction Station, when that station was closed in 1958. If true that would mean that an ex LNWR foot bridge is located at an ex GWR station which must be reasonably unusual if not unique.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top