Closure of the level crossing between Dalwhinnie and Ben Alder estate

[Davester50]

One of the features of Scotland's right to roam is that the public are responsible for their own safety, not the landowner. The same should apply to users of the crossing, and I'm sure that those who have been using it accept that.

How many walkers do the M8, or across the tarmac at the International Airports?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

How many walkers do the M8, or across the tarmac at the International Airports?

A fair number, here's a couple of recent ones.

Pedestrian dies on M8 after being hit by several cars

The man was hit by the vehicles on the westbound carriageway of the M8 early on Friday morning.

www.bbc.co.uk

Person killed after being hit by vehicle on M8 at West Lothian

Traffic queues stretching several miles built up after the accident in West Lothian in the early hours.

www.bbc.co.uk

They end up dead.

In contrast the Dalwhinnie crossing is used by hundreds of walkers every year. None of them were killed.

 

[InOban]

Drunks are regularly killed wandering on to motorways. Transport Scotland aren't prosecuted.

Right to roam has limits. You can't walk across my garden. I agree that legally NR property is equivalent to the airport.

This isn't the first time this problem has arisen. A few years ago they suddenly closed the only access to Kilchurn Castle. Perhaps someone can tell me what they did I think they'd may have built a path along the river under the railway.

 

[jopsuk]

Perhaps if they published the incident log the public would understand. I don't recall any incidents serious enough to appear in the media.

One of the features of Scotland's right to roam is that the public are responsible for their own safety, not the landowner. The same should apply to users of the crossing, and I'm sure that those who have been using it accept that.

But the Railway has a duty of care to the safety and mental wellbeing of railway staff, which includes reasonable measures to mitigate against irresponsible members of the public and act on concerns that staff raise about particular locations

 

[InOban]

Surely the same should apply to the drivers of vehicles who run over a drunk on the road?

 

[Davester50]

A fair number, here's a couple of recent ones.

Pedestrian dies on M8 after being hit by several cars

The man was hit by the vehicles on the westbound carriageway of the M8 early on Friday morning.

www.bbc.co.uk

Person killed after being hit by vehicle on M8 at West Lothian

Traffic queues stretching several miles built up after the accident in West Lothian in the early hours.

www.bbc.co.uk

They end up dead.

In contrast the Dalwhinnie crossing is used by hundreds of walkers every year. None of them were killed.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1832/rail-safety-2019-20.pdf

ORR:

There were 21 non-suicide fatalities in 2019-20 - 17 of these were trespassers, which is
the lowest number of trespasser fatalities since the current comparable time series began
in 2007-08. Three trespass fatalities involved children (under 18). Two of the fatalities were level crossing users, and two were other non-suicide fatalities:
one was due to a fall from a bridge onto the running line, and one was an electrocution
incident.

I hope you're not suggesting have a death and then do something, as that what it sounds like.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1832/rail-safety-2019-20.pdf

I hope you're not suggesting have a death and then do something, as that what it sounds like.

Have a death and then do nothing seems to be fine for the M8. Are you OK with that?

 

[Davester50]

Have a death and then do nothing seems to be fine for the M8. Are you OK with that?

Deflection. Didn't answer the question.
And to answer yours, if there's wilful action to be there, there's little the road authorities can do. It's not like the road network has a legal obligation to fence itself off - unlike the railway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Have a death and then do nothing seems to be fine for the M8. Are you OK with that?

Like it or not, the law is different between the railway at a level crossing (where pedestrians are allowed) and a motorway (where they are not).

 

[snowball]

It's not like the road network has a legal obligation to fence itself off - unlike the railway.

There is a legal obligation to fence off motorways but there have to be gaps in the fences so vehicles can get on and off at junctions.

 

[Frankton Junct]

I want to refocus this discussion back to my original query, which was about the engagement with the affected parties.

I am not qualified to conduct the risk assessment of this crossing and I accept that risks that were accepted historically are not acceptable today, or that the risk might have increased with more users or the quieter modern trains.

If, as was claimed in the Times article, pedestrians need to cross the railway at this location, or they will trespass regardless of the risk, then perhaps a footbridge would be justified? Or a footpath to the underbridge a mile away?
(Yes, I know that bridges cost money and they take time to design and construct)

 

[Killingworth]

I want to refocus this discussion back to my original query, which was about the engagement with the affected parties.

I am not qualified to conduct the risk assessment of this crossing and I accept that risks that were accepted historically are not acceptable today, or that the risk might have increased with more users or the quieter modern trains.

If, as was claimed in the Times article, pedestrians need to cross the railway at this location, or they will trespass regardless of the risk, then perhaps a footbridge would be justified? Or a footpath to the underbridge a mile away?
(Yes, I know that bridges cost money and they take time to design and construct)

There is a footbridge at the nearby station. Linking a new path at the far side might resolve the issue for pedestrians.

 

[eastdyke]

There is a footbridge at the nearby station. Linking a new path at the far side might resolve the issue for pedestrians.

Except that the station footbridge would then form part of the defacto 'right of way' posing perhaps another issue for NR/TOC?

Looking at the Core Path maps it seems that the path in question now stops well short of the railway on the estate side.

A minor point perhaps, but I do hope that the footpath sign from Station Road has been removed or changed? I would be well peeved if arriving at Dalwhinnie (station) booted and packed I followed the route to then have to retrace my steps back to the station before taking the 'new route'

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[Maxfly]

Perhaps if they published the incident log the public would understand. I don't recall any incidents serious enough to appear in the media.

One of the features of Scotland's right to roam is that the public are responsible for their own safety, not the landowner. The same should apply to users of the crossing, and I'm sure that those who have been using it accept that.

If most crossing incidents appeared in newspapers, near misses or otherwise, there would be no room for any other news.
Something has obviously triggered the closure, so, and I am assuming here, one or more of the safety standards relating to this crossing are not being met. What has changed i don't know, is it relating to a specific train or have standards tightened up so the crossing doesn't meet them any longer? Sighting is certainly very poor looking northwards. The question is what is the solution.
Was there not a long standing speed restriction relating to this too at one point?

 

[Bill57p9]

Is this closure entirely down to the crossing itself, or is it linked to the use of Azumas, which seem to have an issue with audibility of their horn? (There was a separate thread about a crossing closure in West Yorkshire for this very reason).

Closing a well established crossing point is asking for trouble unless there is a clear, convenient and signposted alternative.
In this particular instance, the alternative is convenient from the west side and by rail but somewhat less so for crossing users on the eastern side.

 

[Davester50]

There is a legal obligation to fence off motorways but there have to be gaps in the fences so vehicles can get on and off at junctions.

Fair enough, but it's not completely fenced.

Motorway with footpath

Goes even more to show this oft played Right to Roam card isn't absolute, and good reason why humans should be clear of transport systems.

 

[eastdyke]

I want to refocus this discussion back to my original query, which was about the engagement with the affected parties.

I am not qualified to conduct the risk assessment of this crossing and I accept that risks that were accepted historically are not acceptable today, or that the risk might have increased with more users or the quieter modern trains.

If, as was claimed in the Times article, pedestrians need to cross the railway at this location, or they will trespass regardless of the risk, then perhaps a footbridge would be justified? Or a footpath to the underbridge a mile away?
(Yes, I know that bridges cost money and they take time to design and construct)

It seems likely that The Scottish Times got 'their' story from The Strathspey & Badenoch Herald, published 31st July.

Anger in Dalwhinnie after well-used level crossing is locked by Network Rail

Claims village will lose income and move will increase danger to people crossing rail line

www.strathspey-herald.co.uk

I think that this apparently precipitative action by Network Rail has created a far more dangerous situation, at least in the short and medium term, than existed before the crossing was padlocked on 28th July. There certainly should have been some local information given and permanent revised signage put in place, perhaps they (NR) just find it easier to do unpopular stuff by fait accompli? The piece in The Strathspey & Badenoch Herald highlights many concerns and issues.

The route is marked on many walkers plans and leaflets issued by Cairngorms National Park which will be widely distributed. 'Users' are hardly going to use the phone to ask if it is safe to climb the gates are they? [yes I know it isn't safe].

I guess that NR will now have a few upcoming hostile engagements

Full article (long with pictures):

Anger in Dalwhinnie after well-used level crossing is locked by Network Rail​

MAKING THEIR POINT: Campaigners at the level crossing at the end of Ben Alder road yesterday morning ahead of its closure.
Network Rail has been accused of acting in a high-handed manner after locking the gates to the public without any consultation at a level crossing in Dalwhinnie serving locals and hill-goers.
Community leaders and businesses are angered Ben Alder car park is now out of bounds, and fear it could hit visitor numbers and income in the small village.
They believe many pedestrians and cyclists will continue to use the point to cross the Highland main rail line – as proved the case during a recent temporary closure – and put themselves in greater danger following the move on Wednesday.
The crossing has been used for more than 30 years without incident, and is on a core path route also recommended in hillwalking guidebooks for Ben Alder and surrounding Munros.
There has been no public consultation – not even with landowners Ben Alder Estate – other than a late notice informing the public of the closure pinned to the metal gates.
Dalwhinnie Community Council chairwoman Jen Dickinson said: “The impact on small new local businesses such as the Dalwhinnie Old School Hostel, The Lodge café bar and the Loch Ericht Hotel will be significant and cannot go unchallenged.

​

“Locking up the crossing is downright dangerous, and will result in greater safety concerns with dog walkers, bikers and hill-goers with outdoor equipment climbing over the gates as they were doing recently when the gates were locked for essential repairs after the train derailment.
“It is an accident waiting to happen. People will not walk or bike to the underpass nearly one mile away at the other end of Dalwhinnie, and it cannot be used by cars either and has no parking.
“Network Rail has removed a local right of access, which has been there for many years without any consultation. We are united in taking a stance against this closure.”
Community councillor Simon Conroy said there can be up to 30 cars in Ben Alder car park at any one time: “Recently it has been absolutely mobbed.”

Emergency services and the estate will still retain access over the crossing at the end of Ben Alder road.

The Netowrk Rail sign which was put up at the crossing at the end of last week.
Joanna Riddell, who owns The Lodge café bar, said the crossing closure will hit their fledgling business geared towards passing walkers and bikers.
“It is a nightmare,” she said.
“There has never been a close call at the crossing. It is really unnecessary.


“As long as the rail line has been here, people have been able to cross it, and Network Rail has done this so underhandedly with no meetings. It is a real disgrace; they are not listening to local people and what is needed to survive here.
“We are a tiny community and we are trying our best to bring Dalwhinnie back to life.”
Highland Council convener Bill Lobban said he was very concerned about the impact on the local community.
He said: “Decisions like this should have involved full community consultation, and it is rather high handed of Network Rail to just blunder their way through this.”
Ben Alder Estate factor Tim Atkinson said their access pre-dates the railway so it had to be maintained, but they are fully behind the campaign.
He said: “We support the community’s effort to get this resolved. This is the obvious way to cross for anyone at that end of the village.
“I don’t think Network Rail really understand that people will still cross there whether the gates are locked or not.”
He confirmed the estate had not been informed of the closure.
He added: “The estate had been aware for some time of Network Rail’s concerns over safety issues, and their desire to find a permanent solution, but at no time was a unilateral closure mentioned.”
The crossing is also used by horseriders.

The cars of hill walkers parked up on their way to Ben Alder and other routes in the area. (CROP)
Badenoch MSP Kate Forbes (SNP) said she would be contacting Network Rail to try and find a solution.
She told the Strathy: “I recognise the strength of feeling locally about this, and I am taking up the matter with Network Rail. It is the peak tourist season so any changes to car park access could have a significantly detrimental impact upon local businesses.”
A Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) spokesperson said they understood the concerns raised by Dalwhinnie residents and would be seeking to find a solution too.
“It has been a well-used access point for people enjoying walks in the local area,” the spokesperson said.
“However, as the relevant authority, Network Rail has a duty to ensure the safety of the public at all times. We do hope this can be achieved while maintaining public access at the location.
“Access rights do not apply to rail crossings, and so the CNPA do not have any formal role in this decision by Network Rail, but we will be seeking to meet with all parties involved to see if we can find a way forward.”

The level crossing was locked at Wednesday lunchtime.
There had been community claims that “the silent” Azuma train had prompted the closure, but this has been denied by operator LNER.
A spokesperson said: “It would not be for us to make a recommendation or any kind of directive to close a rail crossing. The Azuma train horns are compliant with regulations otherwise we would not be able to run these trains.”
A Network Rail spokesperson said the private crossing was intended for the use of the landowner and not as an access point for the general public.
He said: “Increased usage of the crossing by the public creates additional risks to their safety from passing trains, and as a result we are locking the crossing to prevent unauthorised use.
“An alternative crossing point, via a road under the railway, is available a mile further along the line for those members of the public seeking to access the hills on the other side of the railway.”
To deter trespass there will be additional fencing put in place, along with the signage indicating the diversionary route.
There is a telephone at the crossing for users to call the rail network to ensure that the line is safe to cross.

 

[Justin Smith]

I have made this point before, that closing any type of crossing is not a positive thing, certainly not for everyone.
It annoys me intensely that different safety standards are held for railways as opposed to roads. They are thinking of opening a station at Magna (Rotherham) for the Tram Train. I saw an artist's impression of it with a massive, and very expensive, bridge over the line from one platform to the other. That will then (apart from Rotherham mainline station) be the only stop on system with such a bridge. At all other stops where people "only" have to cross busy roads you are expected to walk across the road.....
It seems to me that when a "risk assessment" is done on anything these days, but esp on the railways, if any risk at all is identified, no matter how unlikely, it's "too dangerous".

I have a long experience on level crossing matters.

There is no way this crossing will have been closed without very senior agreement. That will have required a detailed assessment of risk, which will include the actual issues of misuse / abuse recorded at that specific crossing. AIUI there have been many. Alternatives will have been considered. Whistle boards may not be effective due to the layout, linespeed, and/or risk level, but they will have been considered. Installing some form of active protection takes time - and of course money, lots of it. This will also have been assessed - but the risk exists right now.

If the crossing was left open in its current format, with the risk assessment indicating it shouldn’t be, and someone ends up dead, the railway is in court; indeed individual managers’ liberty is at risk. This crossing is private, and therefore can be closed only with the agreement of the authorised user (presumably the Ben Alder estate). They have evidently agreed. Would you be willing to sign the paperwork that says a crossing known to have safety issues should stay open, certain in the knowledge that if somebody dies on the crossing you’ll be spending some time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure?

You say you have long experience of level crossing matters, what is the chances someone would get killed on that crossing, not exactly, just roughly, in any one year ?
If they, or you, do not know the answer to that it is a meaningless risk assessment, and they certainly are not following the self evident truth in my signature below..

 

[Meerkat]

From the linked article

“Recently it has been absolutely mobbed.”

Ie the risk has dramatically increased due to greater use

 

[peteb]

I'm still uncertain as to why in Great Britain (i.e. network rail routes) rules and regulations require railways to be fenced off in rural areas, and which necessitates foot crossings via stiles, kissing gates etc. And debates like this on the forum. Ok, I understand that fences are needed to keep livestock off the tracks but in most parts of rural France once out of urban areas and LGV excepted, lineside fencing is uncommon even on 160km/h routes. The use of electric fences seems to control livestock: there aren't daily reports of sheep, goats, cattle bringing the SNCF in the Auvergne to a stand still for example. Perhaps GB is taking a more cautious approach to H&S than its continental neighbours?

 

[InOban]

One point in the newspaper article is that the route was a drove road, predating the railway. It would be interesting to read the Act to see whether the railway company were required to have a crossing at that point to maintain the traditional route. In other words the estate factor isn't the only authorised user.

I believe that in France at least only high speed lines are fenced.

We may need a change in the law to limit the liability of the railway.

With modern radio technology it is surely neither difficult nor expensive to install a phone connected to Control and locks on the gate which they can release if the line is clear.

The local MSP mentioned is the finance secretary (= chancellor of the exchequer )

 

[D6130]

I believe that in France at least only high speed lines are fenced.

The general rule on most European railways is that lines are fenced in built-up areas and rural areas where livestock grazes in adjoining fields - plus, as already mentioned - on all high speed lines. There are of course exceptions....for example where fields are separated from the railway by a road, river, stream, drainage ditch or canal. Where the railway passes through cultivated arable fields, it will not usually be fenced but, where it passes through woods and forests, it usually will be - in order to prevent wild animals, such as deer and wild boar, form accessing the track.

 

[peteb]

The general rule on most European railways is that lines are fenced in built-up areas and rural areas where livestock grazes in adjoining fields - plus, as already mentioned - on all high speed lines. There are of course exceptions....for example where fields are separated from the railway by a road, river, stream, drainage ditch or canal. Where the railway passes through cultivated arable fields, it will not usually be fenced but, where it passes through woods and forests, it usually will be - in order to prevent wild animals, such as deer and wild boar, form accessing the track.

Yes agree, just watch any rural drivers eye view on YouTube and you can see the variety or lack of fencing on a single journey! Must be a bit nerve wracking if you drive for SNCF.

 

[Southsider]

Don’t know if it’s been mentioned but the local paper reports that CCTV has now been installed.

CCTV installed at Ben Alder level crossing as row continues

Network Rail working with British Transport Police to 'discourage' people from climbing over locked gates

www.strathspey-herald.co.uk

 

[Frankton Junct]

The BBC picked up the story: Row over access to one of the most remote Munros

More on this story can be heard on BBC Radio Scotland's Out of Doors on Saturday from 06:30 and again on iPlayer.

 

[Bill57p9]

With modern radio technology it is surely neither difficult nor expensive to install a phone connected to Control and locks on the gate which they can release if the line is clear.

I am reasonably confident that Dalwhinnie signal box doesn't get switched out.

 

[Maxfly]

With modern radio technology it is surely neither difficult nor expensive to install a phone connected to Control and locks on the gate which they can release if the line is clear.

The local MSP mentioned is the finance secretary (= chancellor of the exchequer )

I will bet you it is! What radio network are you using, is it secure, to lock/unlock the gate well that’s now got to be interlocked into the signalling system in some way too, now you have an extortionate cost for one crossing and Why would control be doing controlling this? they have enough to do. Plus you are now passing control of a crossing to a person that has little accurate idea of a trains location to decide if it is safe to cross. There are phones that dial into Dalwhinnie and the signaller grants permission or not for vehicles to cross. Pedestrian stop look listen, no need to phone.
nice easy idea to pull out of a hat but holds no weight as something to solve the problem

 

[InOban]

In the real world procedures don't have to be risk free. They have to be As Low As Reasonably Practical. This insistence on gold plating everything is what makes the railway so expensive that more dangerous modes are used instead.

NR already control both the WHL and the FNL by, radio and have plans to extend the capabilities of this to include the operation of points, and to use the built-in GPS to allow the release of UWCs as soon as the train has passed. (For example, there's a UWC between Crianlarich and Tyndrum lower, but since the train will at present have a token through to Dalmally, 20 minutes later, even though the user may have seen the train pass )

Organisations always find it easier to find reasons for not doing something different rather than embracing the possibilities of doing something innovative.

 

[Maxfly]

In the real world procedures don't have to be risk free. They have to be As Low As Reasonably Practical. This insistence on gold plating everything is what makes the railway so expensive that more dangerous modes are used instead.

NR already control both the WHL and the FNL by, radio and have plans to extend the capabilities of this to include the operation of points, and to use the built-in GPS to allow the release of UWCs as soon as the train has passed. (For example, there's a UWC between Crianlarich and Tyndrum lower, but since the train will at present have a token through to Dalmally, 20 minutes later, even though the user may have seen the train pass )

Organisations always find it easier to find reasons for not doing something different rather than embracing the possibilities of doing something innovative.

Yes but that radio is interlocked isn’t it.
Those plans are not guaranteed and are down the line among the list of improvements planned on RETB lines but iirc the points are higher up the list. Plus the radio is currently used to find out the trains location so users are not kept waiting longer than necessary at crossings but what the gps will do, at a cost of course, is lessen the risk of human error (more gold plating of safety there I’m afraid, sorry)
the insistence on ‘gold plating’ everything is what makes the railway here generally very safe but not 100% and just wait for any uproar and lawsuits as soon as standards are dropped and an incident occurs

 

[haggishunter]

Network Rail says the crossing is for 'authorised users only'. Question - who are the authorised users, specific named individuals / estate roles, or those who have authority to use the estate road immediately to the other side?

If it is the later, then while only estate authorised motor vehicles have a right to use the road, by dint of the Land Reform Act the public have a right of non motorised access and thus are authorised users of the road in law?

Others have pointed out that attempts to restrict access rights get met with a thrawn response and if CCTV has been put up with the intention of identifying people crossing the railway here it is only likely to lead to an increase in crossings as a protest. Spoken to a few people in outdoor activities and land management who've said their understanding was private level crossings in Scotland were only private for authorised users in respect to motor vehicles and thus were accessible to the public on foot / bike. Certainly there must be a not insignificant number of such crossings used in this way in rural Scotland and this is not a precedent that should be getting set.