Horton in Ribblesdale station to get footbridge, with lifts.

lyndhurst25 · 12 Mar 2020

https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/18295119.horton-station-get-1-9m-bridge/

HORTON-in-Ribblesdale Station is to receive £800,000 of government funding as part of an improvement scheme for passengers and Three Peaks visitors worth almost £2 million.

The package is a share of a £20 million funding package being spread among 16 stations across Yorkshire from the Department of Transport to ‘accelerate the pace of change for a more accessible transport network’.

A Department of Transport spokesman said the £800,000 windfall for Horton in Ribblesdale was to replace the current level crossing, the only access across the line, with a new footbridge and was part of a £1.9 million scheme at the site. The remainder of the funding is understood to be coming from Network Rail.

The new bridge will also have a disabled lift through a request by the parish council.

The funding for the bridge was discussed at Monday night’s meeting of the parish council. Councillors said they were ‘very appreciative of the actions taken in respect to accessibility of the rail network for everyone’.

Parish Council clerk Andrew Blackburn said: “The money should provide a lift system for the new rail footbridge and make the accessible project viable for Network Rail and particularly Horton Quarry which requires a rail link from the main line into the quarry.”

He said the quarry wanted to open up the old sidings and rail link to the main line at Horton, but as the quarry train would have to manoeuvre into the station before it could reverse back to the quarry Network Rail said it was a health and safety issue and insisted on a footpath.

Mr Blackburn said original plans drawn up by Network Rail did not include disabled access and after a response by the parish council and other users, amended the plans to incorporate electric lifts.

The new bridge will not only benefit rail users, but also Three Peaks walkers who cross the line on the 26-mile route.

Mr Blackburn added: “The lift system to be incorporated with the bridge will make the railway station accessible to everyone, and in 2020 this must be mandatory.”

In announcing the funding package, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said: “The ability to travel easily from A to B is an essential factor for our day to day lives - but is not the reality for everyone. I recognise that we have much more to do, which is why we’re making 16 train stations across the Yorkshire and the Humber more accessible - a key part of levelling-up access for disabled people to transport and opening up opportunities for all.”

The improvements are being made through the government’s Access for All programme.

RailUK Forums

philthetube · 13 Mar 2020

No Staff and no customer help points and lifts to be installed, are they sure?

xc170 · 13 Mar 2020

I hope the bridge is designed to be as sympathetic as possible to it's surroundings.

Whistler40145 · 13 Mar 2020

How would this work?

An example, the lifts at Poulton-le-Fylde railway station are only available when the ticket office is open.

47271 · 13 Mar 2020

Whistler40145 said:
How would this work?

An example, the lifts at Poulton-le-Fylde railway station are only available when the ticket office is open.

I'm not sure that it's essential for a station to be staffed for it to have lifts. Gleneagles is an example off the top of my head.

pdeaves · 13 Mar 2020

Whistler40145 said:
How would this work?
An example, the lifts at Poulton-le-Fylde railway station are only available when the ticket office is open.

Generally, there needs to be someone available to respond to a lift emergency. It's usually convenient to have someone on site but remote monitoring/control is used on occasion now. There is still much debate over whether a remote response team is appropriate or not.

61653 HTAFC · 13 Mar 2020

47271 said:
I'm not sure that it's essential for a station to be staffed for it to have lifts. Gleneagles is an example off the top of my head.

Low Moor is another. Presumably it depends on the design of lift, possibly extra safety provisions needed if staff aren't on site?

duffield · 13 Mar 2020

Long Eaton - there was a lengthy delay before the completed lifts opened due to the requirement for remote monitoring when the ticket office was closed but it was sorted out eventually (this was what the local press reported anyhow).

tbtc · 13 Mar 2020

£800,000 seems like a lot of money to be spent on a station with only twenty six departing passengers per day (18,968 passengers per year in total, but that figure treats every return journey as two).

I know that "you can't put a price on safety" etc etc but we are going to make railway so expensive that The Powers That Be decide that other things provide better value for money.

30907 · 13 Mar 2020

tbtc said:
£800,000 seems like a lot of money to be spent on a station with only twenty six departing passengers per day (18,968 passengers per year in total, but that figure treats every return journey as two).

I know that "you can't put a price on safety" etc etc but we are going to make railway so expensive that The Powers That Be decide that other things provide better value for money.

As the article says, it's a consequence of freight traffic from the quarry.
The foot crossing is also the route of the footpath to the top of Ingleborough, and around 100k people do the Three Peaks annually, not to mention ordinary walkers, which gives it a massive footfall.

Bletchleyite · 13 Mar 2020

30907 said:
As the article says, it's a consequence of freight traffic from the quarry.
The foot crossing is also the route of the footpath to the top of Ingleborough, and around 100k people do the Three Peaks annually, not to mention ordinary walkers, which gives it a massive footfall.

This is very true - often closing foot crossings is considered the thing to do, but in this case keeping the crossing open is probably considerably more justifiable than keeping the railway open.

Ploughman · 13 Mar 2020

Are there no nearby Acc Bridges?
Maybe cheaper to buy access over the railway that way.

Bletchleyite · 13 Mar 2020

Ploughman said:
Are there no nearby Acc Bridges?
Maybe cheaper to buy access over the railway that way.

That doesn't give you access to the other platform.

Tio Terry · 13 Mar 2020

There are hundreds of stations in and around London that are unmanned for much of the day that have lifts, doesn't seem to present any particular problem. Presumably this part of the A4A programme, if there is a significant footfall at a foot crossing then presumably there is also a PRM access issue to consider?

30907 · 13 Mar 2020

Ploughman said:
Are there no nearby Acc Bridges?
Maybe cheaper to buy access over the railway that way.

Road underbridge about 1/4 mile north (no pavement)
Looks to be a cattle creep slightly nearer
Then the access road to the quarry further south, which doesn't bridge the siding.
So nothing at all reasonable

lyndhurst25 · 13 Mar 2020

I was thinking that it's a strange station to prioritise and an awful lot of money to provide a bridge and lifts given the passenger numbers that Horton has, but the foot crossing there also carries a popular public footpath so the expenditure may be justified. Ribblehead has similar passenger figures to Horton, so I wonder what the plans for the foot crossing there are? I'm also wondering how any new bridge(s) are going to be designed to match surroundings as the National Park and railway heritage groups are likely to object if they don't. That also leaves the much more well used stations at Settle and Appleby with heritage stepped footbridges and foot crossings that aren't supposed to be used outside station ticket office opening hours.

yorksrob · 13 Mar 2020

lyndhurst25 said:
I was thinking that it's a strange station to prioritise and an awful lot of money to provide a bridge and lifts given the passenger numbers that Horton has, but the foot crossing there also carries a popular public footpath so the expenditure may be justified. Ribblehead has similar passenger figures to Horton, so I wonder what the plans for the foot crossing there are? I'm also wondering how any new bridge(s) are going to be designed to match surroundings as the National Park and railway heritage groups are likely to object if they don't. That also leaves the much more well used stations at Settle and Appleby with heritage stepped footbridges and foot crossings that aren't supposed to be used outside station ticket office opening hours.

Appleby has separate access to the up platform, so isn't an issue.

Settle has a foot crossing, but I can't remember if there's independant access to the down platform. There's certainly a road underbridge next door, so a ramp might be possible.

Baxenden Bank · 13 Mar 2020

I think the key issue is that the quarry wish to re-open their siding and that trains using it would have to manoeuvre on the main line where the crossing is ie reversing moves from the northbound platform line into the quarry. I guess the foot crossing would remain otherwise. Don't fancy propelling myself in a wheelchiar, or pushing another person using a wheelchair, up the road to the station though, never mind the accessible footbridge.

He said the quarry wanted to open up the old sidings and rail link to the main line at Horton, but as the quarry train would have to manoeuvre into the station before it could reverse back to the quarry Network Rail said it was a health and safety issue and insisted on a footpath.

I think footpath here is a typo and should state footbridge.

Baxenden Bank · 13 Mar 2020

yorksrob said:
Appleby has separate access to the up platform, so isn't an issue.

Settle has a foot crossing, but I can't remember if there's independant access to the down platform. There's certainly a road underbridge next door, so a ramp might be possible.

No independent access to the down platform. It's a long drop too with houses immediately behind the wall.

yorksrob · 13 Mar 2020

It's certainly an encouraging sign to see another freight source accessing the route. This would have been yet another load on the roads had the closure proponents been successful.

yorksrob · 13 Mar 2020

Baxenden Bank said:
No independent access to the down platform. It's a long drop too with houses immediately behind the wall.

Ah thanks for the confirmation.

Baxenden Bank · 13 Mar 2020

yorksrob said:
It's certainly an encouraging sign to see another freight source accessing the route. This would have been yet another load on the roads had the closure proponents been successful.

I haven't looked it up, but could it be like Arcow Quarry just down the line - required as part of a planning permission for life extension of the quarry?

yorksrob · 13 Mar 2020

Baxenden Bank said:
I haven't looked it up, but could it be like Arcow Quarry just down the line - required as part of a planning permission for life extension of the quarry?

I would assume it was something similar.

30907 · 13 Mar 2020

lyndhurst25 said:
I was thinking that it's a strange station to prioritise and an awful lot of money to provide a bridge and lifts given the passenger numbers that Horton has, but the foot crossing there also carries a popular public footpath so the expenditure may be justified. Ribblehead has similar passenger figures to Horton, so I wonder what the plans for the foot crossing there are? I'm also wondering how any new bridge(s) are going to be designed to match surroundings as the National Park and railway heritage groups are likely to object if they don't. That also leaves the much more well used stations at Settle and Appleby with heritage stepped footbridges and foot crossings that aren't supposed to be used outside station ticket office opening hours.

Once you have to build a new footbridge (unlike at the stations you mention) the justification for NOT including lifts becomes more difficult, and obviously local pressure worked.

Fisherman80 · 13 Mar 2020

tbtc said:
£800,000 seems like a lot of money to be spent on a station with only twenty six departing passengers per day (18,968 passengers per year in total, but that figure treats every return journey as two).

I know that "you can't put a price on safety" etc etc but we are going to make railway so expensive that The Powers That Be decide that other things provide better value for money.

With it being the Settle to Carlisle railway,I would be against installing lifts. I would much prefer if it the money was spent on full time station staff. For £800,000,it seems that money could be better used.

Meerkat · 13 Mar 2020

After doing the 3 peaks I think the footbridge would have finished me off!

Spartacus · 14 Mar 2020

Meerkat said:
After doing the 3 peaks I think the footbridge would have finished me off!

Funny enough I was just wondering if a footbridge might actually be more dangerous than a foot crossing due to the number of people who will inevitably be tempted to cross via the line, then possibly struggle with tired legs and a rucksack to get themselves back up onto the opposite platform? I know when a foot crossing was replaced with a footbridge near me people just trespassed via the old route, which was of course now more dangerous due to a lack of an actual crossing and warning due to the removal of whistle boards that accompanied it. There palisade fencing was put in to stop people, but at a station that isn't possible.

Hopefully the footbridge steps will start right where the crossing currently is to minimise the chances of this happening, even with a set of steps that start further back on the Ingleborough side up the embankment, in a similar fashion to the access to the footbridge at Garforth from Aberford Road, so walkers in that direction don't have to go down steps to the platform to go up the steps on the footbridge.

The another solution might be to divert the footpath away from the station, or at least offer a diversion via the closest cattle creep following the wall line from near where it crosses a farm track up the hill.

a_c_skinner · 14 Mar 2020

Wouldn't lights/locking gates on the existing crossing be more sensible and less intrusive?

Spartacus · 14 Mar 2020

a_c_skinner said:
Wouldn't lights/locking gates on the existing crossing be more sensible and less intrusive?

Trouble is if the quarry trains need to shunt into the station as is suggested that crossing is going to be blocked for potentially quite some time with no alternative. Pairing that with a Midland style footbridge would probably be the best solution, but that would leave wheelchair users unable to cross, even though realistically they're going to be few and far between, and the chances of a shunting freight and wheelchair bound passenger ever meeting (without the artificial engineering of such) must be very remote.

a_c_skinner · 14 Mar 2020

That fact had passed me by, apologies. OTOH I suppose both lines will be blocked so no one will miss trains. This seems a ton of money for a modest gain.

OTOH I did have a near miss with a 125 excursion on that crossing years ago...

Horton in Ribblesdale station to get footbridge, with lifts.

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member