Closure of the level crossing between Dalwhinnie and Ben Alder estate

[68000]

It seems the walkers have no interest in using the alternative safer crossing point. Pig-headedness will not help matters here and the combination padlock is being left open by people who should know better

There is a perfectly viable alternative down the line which does not even cross the railway, it goes under!

 

[hermit]

Not everyone viewing this debate will appreciate the importance of this route in hillwalking terms. It is the only practical way in to one a huge area of some of the most remote and attractive landscape in the Highlands. All guidebooks, including the Scottish Mountaineering Club guide to the Munros show it as such. It is also part of important multi-day cross-country treks - one popular such trek is from Corrour to Dalwhinnie, which I managed some years ago, collecting the intervening Munros on the way. (And incidentally providing the railway with a good deal of custom on this and other trips). There is a very large community of hill walkers and climbers who will be horrified by the closure.

So barring access is not something that should be done lightly. I am sure that Network Rail will have carried out their assessment conscientiously and professionally, but it could be argued that they have an interest in finding a solution that protects them from risk and expense. Their initial stance - we have the power to close the crossing, so will do so - was not encouraging.

It is very unsatisfactory that there has been no wider consultation which could reassure everyone that
(a) the solution proposed is proportionate to the actual risk - after all, the hill walkers and climbers who use the crossing are, almost by definition, more safety-conscious than most of the people who are involved in crossing incidents;
(b) that it will not make things worse, by leading to people climbing over the gates or fences elsewhere; and
(c) that the exceptional importance of the route for hill walkers and access generally has been given proper weight in the decision process.

In short, I don’t think this is a decision that can be reasonably left to Network Rail alone.

 

[eastdyke]

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?

You mention the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003?
I suspect that in relation to railways section 6 (1) (d) may be relevant.

6 Land over which access rights not exercisable
(1)The land in respect of which access rights are not exercisable is land—
.....
(d)to which public access is, by or under any enactment other than this Act, prohibited, excluded or restricted;

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to establish statutory public rights of access to land for recreational and other purposes, and to extend some of the provisions for that purpose to rights of way and other rights; to make provision under which bodies representing rural and crofting communities...

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[InOban]

Remember that what is needed is something safer than people clambering over the gate and continuing to use this ancient route.
I foresee a mass crossing this weekend. The access fraternity in Scotland are numerous and well organised.

Fortunately we are coming to the end of the peak season for Munro bagging. The nights are drawing in and the weather is changing. (In case you didn't know we've had the lovely weather you weren't getting )

 

[hermit]

Fortunately we are coming to the end of the peak season for Munro bagging. The nights are drawing in and the weather is changing. (In case you didn't know we've had the lovely weather you weren't getting )

You could also mention the midges and the approach of the deerstalking season. But would-be peak-baggers are not easily put off!

 

[haggishunter]

You mention the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003?
I suspect that in relation to railways section 6 (1) (d) may be relevant.

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to establish statutory public rights of access to land for recreational and other purposes, and to extend some of the provisions for that purpose to rights of way and other rights; to make provision under which bodies representing rural and crofting communities...

www.legislation.gov.uk

I don't think anyone is advocating unrestricted unfettered rights to wander across or along any random bit of the railway and my point was specifically about what constituted an authorised user of the road immediately either side of the level crossing. As InOban says if people are going to continue to use the route (and they are), then locking the gates makes the crossing riskier not safer, or worse still people just cross away from the crossing where it's not expected, where sightlines maybe even poorer to spot incoming trains and the risk of tripping is obviously substantially higher.

Prohibiting the general public from undertaking activities on estate roads where access rights can otherwise be exercised by means of no pedestrian access to such level crossings has a wider impact on outdoor access.

 

[alf]

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?

With respect this is ridiculous.

When did a British Rail or Network Rail manager ever go to prison, or be fined, or lose their job, when somebody died at a crossing?
Answer never.
Lets have some common sense & balance.

 

[Meerkat]

As InOban says if people are going to continue to use the route (and they are), then locking the gates makes the crossing riskier not safer

How is it riskier?

 

[Killingworth]

We want more people to travel by train. Encourage them to come to Dalwhinnie to walk.

Instead of working up a head of steam to oppose this closure, work positively with all parties to create an entrance to the station from the west side to a new path to join the track to the south of the station. It's only about 300 yards from the end of the footbridge, see; https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5779578

A long term solution without any telephone controls.

(Here in Sheffield we know all about rights of way across stations and precedents!)

 

[InOban]

Because if a group of walkers have to climb over one by one they will be in the danger area much longer and less likely to e keeping a lookout.

 

[johnnychips]

As a hiker, I’m afraid that if a gate I found unexpectedly padlocked on my route was there I would climb over it. As several posters have pointed out, the routes to various mountains via the crossing has been on many published sources. I would hope the closure has been communicated to these sources by those responsible so websites can be updated etc.

 

[eastdyke]

We want more people to travel by train. Encourage them to come to Dalwhinnie to walk.

Instead of working up a head of steam to oppose this closure, work positively with all parties to create an entrance to the station from the west side to a new path to join the track to the south of the station. It's only about 300 yards from the end of the footbridge, see; https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5779578

A long term solution without any telephone controls.

(Here in Sheffield we know all about rights of way across stations and precedents!)

I seem to remember that the ticket gates issue caused a bit of a 'head of steam' in Sheffield 10 or so years ago

I quite agree with you that there are solutions, but the apparent precipitative action of NR so far will not enable an easy start to any discussion.
There would remain the car parking to be solved (not sure the current size).

Perhaps NR just want someone else to pay for a new footbridge near to the existing site?

 

[68000]

As a hiker, I’m afraid that if a gate I found unexpectedly padlocked on my route was there I would climb over it. As several posters have pointed out, the routes to various mountains via the crossing has been on many published sources. I would hope the closure has been communicated to these sources by those responsible so websites can be updated etc.

Do you just charge on regardless then? Walkers seem to object to a minor detour... why?

 

[haggishunter]

Why wouldn’t you just ‘charge on’ - locked gates are usually about trying to prevent unauthorised motorised use of estate roads, they have no meaning as you seem to imply that walkers need to choose a different route.

In this specific case mountain bikes often form part of the hill walking or ski touring expedition due to the distances being involved. Estate roads are good for that, rough hillside or moorland are not and nor would a traditional station footbridge for that matter.

 

[68000]

Why wouldn’t you just ‘charge on’ - locked gates are usually about trying to prevent unauthorised motorised use of estate roads, they have no meaning as you seem to imply that walkers need to choose a different route.

In this specific case mountain bikes often form part of the hill walking or ski touring expedition due to the distances being involved. Estate roads are good for that, rough hillside or moorland are not and nor would a traditional station footbridge for that matter.

Why would a mountain biker refuse to cycle a mile on road/path to an underpass?

 

[Killingworth]

As a hiker, I’m afraid that if a gate I found unexpectedly padlocked on my route was there I would climb over it. As several posters have pointed out, the routes to various mountains via the crossing has been on many published sources. I would hope the closure has been communicated to these sources by those responsible so websites can be updated etc.

I confess, if as a walker I came from the west to that padlocked gate I'd probably climb over it. If I'd parked my car on the east side where it suggests in a guidebook I'd probably do the same - and I was 18 a long time ago! I'd be hopping mad.

If on a bike I'd probably cycle round, as long as the diversion was made clear well in advance. It needn't be too far extra. If not see previous paragraph!

 

[haggishunter]

Why would a mountain biker refuse to cycle a mile on road/path to an underpass?

I could certainly think of reasons why I'd rather not cycle on a trunk road with skis strapped diagonally on my back!

Back to the point about the gates being locked being potentially worse. Given it's a big undertaking to get to the Munros around Ben Alder, people arriving back to Dalwhinnie when faced with being a couple of hundred yards from their car (or a wee bit more to the station) vs over a mile more - they are going to take the 200 yard option and more so if they've arrived there expecting that crossing to be open. You then have tired people, clambering over the gate, potentially distracted and as InOban says within the crossing for longer.

 

[johnnychips]

Do you just charge on regardless then? Walkers seem to object to a minor detour... why?

Well yes, I would climb over the gate, look both ways and cross. As I said, if sources had already told me of the detour before, I wouldn’t be there.

 

[Meerkat]

Because if a group of walkers have to climb over one by one they will be in the danger area much longer and less likely to e keeping a lookout.

Walking across the tracks won’t take them longer - the locks don’t make the track wider!
And if they are standing around on the track watching their mates climb over the gate then there really is no hope and I’ll just give Darwin a nudge.

 

[charlesisbozo]

It does appear that Network Rail didn't consult over this with any hillwalking groups. Looking around on Ordinance survey maps, I think this may be one of the most important level crossing for hillwalkers and access to the hills. The diversion route is 1.7 km, or about 20 minutes on foot. I'm sure motorists will be rightly annoyed if they were suddenly told to take a 20 minute diversion without any consultation. The impact is worsened by the fact that the level crossing lies at the end of the day. If someone's tired with sore feet (it's a long and rather monotonous walk to get to the Ben Alder munros), they'd be much more likely to climb the gate and ignore any signs. Especially if they've read somewhere that this is the way to do it (this is the default route pre-closure, after all), and they can see their car or the station across the track.

 

[philthetube]

I hike quite a lot and have used many foot crossings and other sorts while out in the country, I have waited for trains to pass on occasions and have never come close to being run down, nor have other people wo I have been with.

I suspect that any safety survey made did not take into account that there will be no deaf old ladies who are losing their marbles or groups of drunk youths in the area and so the crossing is many times safer than it may appear on just a number based survey.

I get the impression that many posters do not realise that a mile diversion on a footpath means an extra 20 mins on the journey, very different reactions would be posted if it were an extra 20 mins drive.

 

[hermit]

I hike quite a lot and have used many foot crossings and other sorts while out in the country, I have waited for trains to pass on occasions and have never come close to being run down, nor have other people wo I have been with.

I suspect that any safety survey made did not take into account that there will be no deaf old ladies who are losing their marbles or groups of drunk youths in the area and so the crossing is many times safer than it may appear on just a number based survey.

I get the impression that many posters do not realise that a mile diversion on a footpath means an extra 20 mins on the journey, very different reactions would be posted if it were an extra 20 mins drive.

Someone who is still capable of doing 3 miles an hour at the end of a typical expedition into the Ben Alder group is pretty fit. The diversion would take longer for most people.(I would be on my knees).

 

[Falcon1200]

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

It may have changed since I retired but the boxes on the Highland Line did switch out on Saturday night, people at User Worked Crossings being directed to phone NR Control instead. The same applied on holidays with no service, eg Xmas, Boxing and New Years Day.

 

[MadMac]

It may have changed since I retired but the boxes on the Highland Line did switch out on Saturday night, people at User Worked Crossings being directed to phone NR Control instead. The same applied on holidays with no service, eg Xmas, Boxing and New Years Day.

There’s nowhere between Perth and Inverness that can “switch out” now: it’s quite possible that some boxes close overnight due to there being no traffic. Would there be signage along the lines of “If no answer call NR at…..”?

 

[Justin Smith]

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.

It is getting that way though, other than on the roads of course. There speed cameras (devices to encourage people to stick to the law) have to be painted yellow......
But it depends on what people regard as risky, and that, to a large extent, depends on their knowledge of risk probability. In my experience most people's knowledge of risk probability is very poor, Covid being the best example of that methinks.

 

[Frankton Junct]

This morning, BBC Scotland's "Out of Doors" programme had a 12 minute segment on this closure. See: Out of Doors 14/08/2021
The segment starts at 35:30.

They interviewed Tim Atkinson, Factor on the Ben Alder Estate; Brendan Paddy, Director of Ramblers Scotland; and Jen Dickinson, Chair of the Dalwhinnie Community Council. They read a written statement from Network Rail and an opinion from Malcolm Combe, Senior Law Lecturer at Strathclyde University.

 

[eastdyke]

This morning, BBC Scotland's "Out of Doors" programme had a 12 minute segment on this closure. See: Out of Doors 14/08/2021
The segment starts at 35:30.

They interviewed Tim Atkinson, Factor on the Ben Alder Estate; Brendan Paddy, Director of Ramblers Scotland; and Jen Dickinson, Chair of the Dalwhinnie Community Council. They read a written statement from Network Rail and an opinion from Malcolm Combe, Senior Law Lecturer at Strathclyde University.

[Warning and apols, long post - I have put a shift in!]

Thank you again for that. Had a listen, locals were all measured and remain bemused. NR will need to field their top people when they do meet to fully explain, which they surely will have to do. And the sooner the better.
Options such as proposed by @Killingworth up-thread could be explored but someone will need to find some money of course. The station footbridge was mentioned as being in a poor state of repair and already an on-going issue!

The 'Lawman' implied that his opinion was that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 was not helpful and that to proceed with a formal challenge there is a need to prove of the existence of a Public Right of Way. [My honest opinion is that will not be possible]

The starting point is likely to be the enabling Act under which the railway was first authorised, 'The Inverness and Perth Junction Railway Act 1861'
The Act in question was advertised within page 2998 The London Gazette of July 23rd 1861 as:

An Act for making a railway from Forres to Birnam, near Dunkeld, with a branch to Aberfeldy, to be called "The Inverness and Perth Junction Railway;" and for other purposes.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/22532/page/2998/data.pdf

The Act will contain the rights, benefits and obligations placed upon the Railway Company and the owners/tenants of the time with respect to (amongst other things) access. I have found a copy on the net but cannot get access without a professional login (which as an individual I do not have).

Inverness and Perth Junction Railway Act 1861

0: [object Object]. 1: [object Object]

vlex.co.uk

Others may be able to help or perhaps find another source!
[Network Rail will have a copy]

I had a look at 2 copies of the Core Map. The definitive copy at Highland Council (who have the prime responsibility for the record) and at NatureScot. Although each is slightly different both show the path using the underpass and avoid the level crossing. I am unable to find any update record for these, others may be able to.

ArcGIS Web Application

highland.maps.arcgis.com

Local path networks

Let local paths take you to and from work or school, to activities and to see your friends. You’ll get fresh air and exercise on the way – and all for free.

www.nature.scot

Finally Highland Council have not, insofar as I can tell, been quoted or involved in any of the articles or discussions, a chat with someone in the Core Maps Office might throw something up.

I do hope that a solution can be found which will suit everybody. It will take some skill, some time and a bit (possibly quite a bit) of money but there has to be one out there.

 

[InOban]

I took two points from the radio item.

1 The next 'private' crossing at Dalnaspidal has gates with traffic lights. The gates are unlocked when the lights are green. Apparently NR say that this can't be done here because of the proximity of the station but don't explain why.

2. NR don't seem to appreciate that in England access is forbidden unless expressly permitted. In Scotland it's permitted unless expressly forbidden.

 

[Maxfly]

I took two points from the radio item.

1 The next 'private' crossing at Dalnaspidal has gates with traffic lights. The gates are unlocked when the lights are green. Apparently NR say that this can't be done here because of the proximity of the station but don't explain why.

2. NR don't seem to appreciate that in England access is forbidden unless expressly permitted. In Scotland it's permitted unless expressly forbidden.

I believe Dalnaspidal crossing is 'pogo' gates which are operated by treadle, as simple cheapish system but if you have a location where some trains are non stoppers and others call at a station within the area where treadles would go it wont work due to the differences in times between striking in and then reaching the crossing.

Right to access doesn't apply to railway property among others like airfields, but there as said previously, has to be an access agreement regarding this crossing.
https://www.outdooraccess-scotland....utdoor Access Code - Part 2 Access Rights.pdf

 

[hermit]

I believe Dalnaspidal crossing is 'pogo' gates which are operated by treadle, as simple cheapish system but if you have a location where some trains are non stoppers and others call at a station within the area where treadles would go it wont work due to the differences in times between striking in and then reaching the crossing.

It‘s understandable that a mixture of stoppers and non-stoppers would complicate things, but it’s hard to believe that it would not be possible to adapt such a system.

The wait for drivers at level crossings often varies a lot depending on whether trains are stoppers or not, or indeed on whether a second train is coming. As the lady from Dalwhinnie pointed out on the BBC piece, drivers are perfectly capable of understanding this, and hill walkers would be no different.