Closure of the level crossing between Dalwhinnie and Ben Alder estate

[Frankton Junct]

The Ben Alder Estate is a good example of corporate citizenship and community engagement. They, and another estate, paid for the construction of the car park adjacent to the closed level crossing. Every year, they spend a considerable sum on the maintenance of the paths on the estate. The contrast with Network Rail could not be greater.

Accepting that the level crossing failed its safety assessment, Network Rail must close it. However, that is not the end of the matter. It appears to me that the impact assessment was perfunctory. Although there is an under bridge one mile away, as the Ben Alder Estate factor stated in his radio interview, that adds 4 miles to the trail (2 of those miles when walkers are wearily trudging back). The leader of the Community Council stated that there is inadequate car parking beside the under bridge, which might cause inconsiderate or unsafe parking. Were these impacts considered?

Network Rail had an opportunity here to engage with the community and impacted users, to fully assess the impact of the closure and to determine what interventions are necessary, or desirable, to mitigate those impacts. It was an opportunity to be a considerate neighbour and a good corporate citizen.

The reputation of Network Rail in the Highlands of Scotland, and more broadly, has been damaged. Network Rail is seen as a remote, unaccountable organisation that takes decisions that adversely impact upon their neighbours and the public. This has shown a lack of leadership in the senior ranks of Network Rail in Scotland. Leadership, not management. There is a difference.

 

[Falcon1200]

Although there is an under bridge one mile away, as the Ben Alder Estate factor stated in his radio interview, that adds 4 miles to the trail (2 of those miles when walkers are wearily trudging back).

Surely if there is another crossing point 1 mile away that only adds 2 miles to the trail ? Although I do agree that that would be severely taxing for some, or many, walkers, and although they cannot be blamed for wanting to reduce the huge risk of level crossings, Network Rail does appear to have been very heavy-handed here.

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely if there is another crossing point 1 mile away that only adds 2 miles to the trail ? Although I do agree that that would be severely taxing for some, or many, walkers, and although they cannot be blamed for wanting to reduce the huge risk of level crossings, Network Rail does appear to have been very heavy-handed here.

The bridge is 500 metres south of the crossing. In theory it is possible to walk between them across open land, albeit there’s no path.

If, as most people will, you walk on alternative route via the path / road, it is 1500m from the crossing car park to the bridge. To get from the car park to a common point back on the trail, the additional net distance is just over a mile; 2 miles if you are doing the return trip.

To put it in context, to do the 6 Ben Alder Munros from that car park (if the crossing is open) is a 36 mile round trip with 8,000 feet of ascent (and 8,000 descent, obviously!)

 

[InOban]

I think most munro-baggers walk or cycle to one of the bothies and make if a 2-3 day expedition.

If this crossing is rated D and as at the time no record of misuse (although there's been a recent report of a local being too slow to get clear ) how many crossings are A-C and/or have records of regular misuse? Surely they are the priority?

 

[Killingworth]

Apologies - didn't read thoroughly enough. Should have done a search.
And the reported poor state of the station footbridge has been mentioned too - I was just going by a photo!

If electrification ever gets as far as Inverness the footbridge, and many others, will probably need to be replaced. That would/will introduce different heritage issues.

Network Rail can't be expected to know what's been printed in every book, magazine and online site regarding this crossing. However the number of cars parked beside it should have given anyone a clue that closure without consultation would cause inconvenience.

As a walker and volunteer in the Peak District I've seen new desire line paths tramped away from PRWs. I know the paper work and notifications that need to be complied with to divert a PRW. I've seen how the public can decide that a simple farmers access stile must become an official route, and cut through fencing wire to gain access for their dogs, thereby allowing sheep to escape. One we regularly had to repair seems to have got into at least one recommended walking route. The walkers won, there's now a proper gate, but it is not a PRW!

Scotland is different, but the practicalities are the same. This is now a very widely accepted walking route. The railway accepted it for generations but clearly it's being used more often. Road vehicles and bikes have a reasonable nearby alternative below the railway.

Heads together, plan a new station overbridge that's electrification ready and heritage acceptable. That will take years. In the short term place big safety warning signage while a path is tramped to a new gate to the west side of the existing bridge. Walkers won't need anything more than waymarkers. Immediate cost? A lot less than the present course. Who would have serious cause to object?

 

[ejstubbs]

seeing the analysis data quoted above, it describes a "Key risk factor" as deliberate misuse, a few lines below saying there has been no misuse history of the crossing

That is kind of how risk management works, though. In simple terms one could argue that "a risk is an issue that hasn't happened yet".

I don't know what the official definition of misuse is in this context but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it included people using it to try to end their lives under a train. Taking that as an example, then, the fact is that someone could do that - and the fact that no-one has done so yet is probably far more down to the relative remoteness of the crossing rather than anything to do with the crossing infrastructure as provided by the railway and its appropriateness for the volume of traffic over the crossing etc etc.

 

[Bikeman78]

If a "crossing" is blocked by big high locked gates most normal sensible logical people will realise that it isn't intended for general public use.

I've climbed over similar gates whilst out walking in the countryside. My four year old son has no trouble climbing over them either. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong crossing?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Am I missing something?

Taking the southern road, past the Scottish Hydro building and under the rail arch, there appears to be an area suitable for parking. Google Streetview only extends to the rail bridge but a car can be seen through the bridge. Google Aerial shows a single car parked in a different location to the north past the bridge. Are there restrictions / notices preventing parking there? Is that not a better location, with greater capacity, than the few spaces visible on Ben Alder Road?

Passengers alighting at Dalwhinnie and going west to the estate are clearly affected by the closure / detour. Crossing users headed straight to the bustling commercial heart of Dalwhinnie are affected, how much depending upon exactly where they are headed.

There is a filling station offering snacks and a snack bar / hotel by the end of the southern access road.

What proportion of the (increasing) numbers of outdoor activity types arrive by car and potentially have no need to use the crossing anyway?

 

[ejstubbs]

The station footbridge was mentioned as being in a poor state of repair and already an on-going issue!

Someone on another forum pointed out that Dalwhinnie station is managed by Abellio. Would that make the footbridge their responsibility - at least as far as its upkeep is concerned?

 

[Bald Rick]

What proportion of the (increasing) numbers of outdoor activity types arrive by car and potentially have no need to use the crossing anyway?

In my experience, nearly all of them arrive by car. Dalwhinnie station has, on average, fewer than 10
people using the station each day, ie 5 each way. Of course this is higher in summer, but you just have to look at the ‘car parks’ and lay bys off the A9 to see how many people drive in.

Also - anecdote not being evidence - I’ve walked there three times, and always driven (and I have free first class rail).

 

[ejstubbs]

Are there restrictions / notices preventing parking there? Is that not a better location, with greater capacity, than the few spaces visible on Ben Alder Road?

That rather depends on who owns that land, and whether they are happy for it to become a car park.

The car park on Ben Alder Road has recently been enlarged, on the local community's initiative. From the Google Maps satellite view I'd estimate that there is room there for at least a dozen vehicles, probably more so long as room is left for the estate's vehicles to pass and departing vehicles to turn. (The latest Streetview image is dated 2014 and by comparing it with the more up-to-date satellite image you can see how much less space there used to be for vehicles to park than there is now.)

Streetview also shows the pedestrian gates at the crossing to be kissing gates, which can be pretty rubbish for getting bikes through, especially ones laden with walking and camping/bothying gear (it's so long since I last went that way that I can't remember what kind of gates they were then). If they are still kissing gates it's understandable why many people taking bikes opted for the underpass even before the crossing gates were locked - an extra mile under your wheels at each end of the trip is nothing like as much of an imposition as an extra mile on weary legs, especially if a decent proportion of the load is carried directly by the bike rather than on your back.

I suspect that a path linking the existing car park directly to the underpass, rather than going round three and half sides of a rectangle, might turn out to be the compromise solution.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Perhaps something could be done to discourage munro-baggers.

 

[TSG]

At a higher level what I fail to understand is the complete disconnect between acceptable risk crossing a road versus a railway.

Almost all people are familiar with crossing a road, are taught to do this safely at a young age and practice doing so regularly. Despite this, roads with high speeds often have engineered solutions for safe crossing (at least where pedestrians can be expected) or ban pedestrians altogether. People crossing roads also have an expectation that traffic will be moving more slowly when there is poor visibility or perhaps ice underfoot.

It is entirely possible that someone at this crossing may never have encountered one like it before. People on this forum understand that trains may be moving at higher speeds than motorway traffic, even in fog or with ice on the surface of the crossing, and may approach quietly. However those responsible for the safety of this crossing would be irresponsible to assume that all users of that crossing know that.

This is surely complete hyperbole. No railway managers have ended up in jail.

The engineers who oversee the M1 motorway know that, on statistics, there will be fatal accidents on it this year. They are not in prospect of being jailed as a result. We have seen the recent publicity about "smart motorways" taking out hard shoulders, and coroners comments on this after accidents. No engineers on the motorway network have been jailed, nor is this in prospect.

Meanwhile, seeing the analysis data quoted above, it describes a "Key risk factor" as deliberate misuse, a few lines below saying there has been no misuse history of the crossing since records began. Makes you wonder how overhyped for the railway's convenience such studies are. Did nobody ever pick this inconsistency up?

Smart motorways cannot be compared with this situation. A government agency has approved the concept of smart motorways, and a government agency has contracted an engineering firm to design and install a smart motorway. Provided the engineer responsible for this work uses all reasonable professional skill and care to implement a design that complies with the guidance in a sensible way the risk is syndicated beyond that 'controlling mind' (even if the concept is flawed).

Deciding to ignore evidence of increasing risk and overriding regulators guidance, industry standards and the advice of other professionals to keep the crossing open would be a very different matter. You are in very different legal territory here.

The key risk factor actually reads 'deliberate misuse or user error'. Given the likelihood of users unfamiliar with the crossing as above, user error may be the concern referred to.

 

[hermit]

I suspect that a path linking the existing car park directly to the underpass, rather than going round three and half sides of a rectangle, might turn out to be the compromise solution.

But, as far as one can tell from Google Maps, that looks a very wet area, and would cross at least one watercourse. Providing even a minimally walkable track would not come cheap, especially at NR rates.

The much shorter link up the west side of the railway, as suggested upthread, to a new gate into Dalwhinnie station looks a more practical proposition, and more likely to tempt walkers away from climbing the crossing gates.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps something could be done to discourage munro-baggers.

Why would you want to discourage a healthy form of outdoor exercise?

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Why would you want to discourage a healthy form of outdoor exercise?

I should like to discourage the enormous amount of driving that goes with it, often for an exhausting day with no views.

I used to live under a hill. One year I conquered it 52 times, fulfilled my need to tick boxes and collect without driving at all. Plenty of variety too, weather, views, colours were different each time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I should like to discourage the enormous amount of driving that goes with it, often for an exhausting day with no views.

I used to live under a hill. One year I conquered it 52 times, fulfilled my need to tick boxes and collect without driving at all. Plenty of variety too, weather, views, colours were different each time.

Each to their own. I enjoy hillwalking (just come back from a weekend of it, indeed), and walking up and down the same hill is not even similar, even though if there was one by my house I probably would go up it often.

 

[IanXC]

The Ben Alder Estate is a good example of corporate citizenship and community engagement. They, and another estate, paid for the construction of the car park adjacent to the closed level crossing. Every year, they spend a considerable sum on the maintenance of the paths on the estate. The contrast with Network Rail could not be greater.

Accepting that the level crossing failed its safety assessment, Network Rail must close it. However, that is not the end of the matter. It appears to me that the impact assessment was perfunctory. Although there is an under bridge one mile away, as the Ben Alder Estate factor stated in his radio interview, that adds 4 miles to the trail (2 of those miles when walkers are wearily trudging back). The leader of the Community Council stated that there is inadequate car parking beside the under bridge, which might cause inconsiderate or unsafe parking. Were these impacts considered?

Network Rail had an opportunity here to engage with the community and impacted users, to fully assess the impact of the closure and to determine what interventions are necessary, or desirable, to mitigate those impacts. It was an opportunity to be a considerate neighbour and a good corporate citizen.

The reputation of Network Rail in the Highlands of Scotland, and more broadly, has been damaged. Network Rail is seen as a remote, unaccountable organisation that takes decisions that adversely impact upon their neighbours and the public. This has shown a lack of leadership in the senior ranks of Network Rail in Scotland. Leadership, not management. There is a difference.

You mean that the people you describe as "a good example of corporate citizenship and community engagement" are precisely the people who have contributed to this problem then. By constructing a car park adjacent to the level crossing this will no doubt have attracted more people to use said level crossing, so potentially being the factor which moved the risk factors on the crossing pushing us to this very situation! Unintended consequences perhaps, but surely if you were going to enhance such a facility and cause more people to use a level crossing you might have a conversation with Network Rail?

Additionally I really don't see where this suggestion that Network Rail should have engaged with the 'community and impacted users'. The crossing is a private user worked crossing, and so for the benefit of the land owner. There is therefore no right for any other persons to make use of the facility, so why should they be consulted?!

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

You mean that the people you describe as "a good example of corporate citizenship and community engagement" are precisely the people who have contributed to this problem then. By constructing a car park adjacent to the level crossing this will no doubt have attracted more people to use said level crossing, so potentially being the factor which moved the risk factors on the crossing pushing us to this very situation! Unintended consequences perhaps, but surely if you were going to enhance such a facility and cause more people to use a level crossing you might have a conversation with Network Rail?

Additionally I really don't see where this suggestion that Network Rail should have engaged with the 'community and impacted users'. The crossing is a private user worked crossing, and so for the benefit of the land owner. There is therefore no right for any other persons to make use of the facility, so why should they be consulted?!

That crossing has been used for over 100 years by walkers and until recently. There was no prior warning that the crossing is an issue. To claim that these users shouldn't have been consulted is exactly the sort of high handed nonsense that gives Network Rail a bad name.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of small level crossings used by walkers in the Highlands. Most of these are designated private user worked crossings but if they were closed to the public then the railway would become an insurmountable obstacle to walkers! Many of these "Private" crossings exist on major paths and rights of way or on heavily used routes. If Network Rail persist in shutting these crossings without consultation then the railways are going to become a major problem for land access in the Highlands.

 

[InOban]

You don't understand the Scottish culture with regard to public access and indeed to land ownership, regarding the owners as custodians with responsibilities to the wider community. It might help if you consider what happens if the NHS decides to redesign services without consultation.

The route at this location predates the railway, so it could be said that it's the railway which crosses the route.

New item by Duncan Martin

photos.app.goo.gl

If this link works it shows a photo of the crossing.

(I notice that the photo appears as mine. It isn't, I've copied it from Railscot and it's copyright )

 

[IanXC]

Yes it does seem that walkers have been using a crossing they are not entitled to use.

As posted above the act of parliament doesn't give this as a public route.

In my experience walkers are first to defend access rights, with proper legal explanations and justifications. The lack of these in this case speaks volumes to me.

 

[hermit]

Even if it is the case that Network Rail have the legal right to close this and similar crossings unilaterally, the exercise of that right without proper consultation or consideration of the effect on other parties will eventually lead for pressure for the legal position to be changed. Hillwalkers and those concerned for access to wild land are a powerful lobby in Scottish politics; I doubt whether Network Rail have many friends. They need to be careful what they insist on.

 

[Killingworth]

Why this action now when those gates and adjacent fence look quite new and the crossing has been there since the line was built? After the recent HST derailment did someone spot the crossing when writing that up? Unexpected consequences!

 

[Wolfie]

Even if it is the case that Network Rail have the legal right to close this and similar crossings unilaterally, the exercise of that right without proper consultation or consideration of the effect on other parties will eventually lead for pressure for the legal position to be changed. Hillwalkers and those concerned for access to wild land are a powerful lobby in Scottish politics; I doubt whether Network Rail have many friends. They need to be careful what they insist on.

I hope, but l wouldn't bet against it, that this doesn't become a spat between Westminster and Holyrood.

 

[ejstubbs]

The bridge is 500 metres south of the crossing. In theory it is possible to walk between them across open land, albeit there’s no path.

And there are fences that you'd have to cross in a responsible manner. Easy enough for one person maybe, but less so if a lot of folks are doing it.

that looks a very wet area, and would cross at least one watercourse. Providing even a minimally walkable track would not come cheap, especially at NR rates.

I didn't mean to suggest that NR should necessarily provide the path. Given the impact that the crossing closure is claimed to be having on the local community, it might not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the relevant landowners to do some minimal work to make the route more attractive and readily passable for walkers. Much of the hillwalking in Scotland involves following informal "desire lines" across rough ground, all you'd need to do in this case would be to make the "line" that little bit more "desirable". And Munro baggers are used to negotiating watercourses. I really don't think we need to be talking DDA compliant infrastructure here.

I suspect an alternative approach of access from the down platform at the station would be much the same.

Perhaps something could be done to discourage munro-baggers.

This might appear to be what NR are trying to do, especially given the wider context as outlined by GlitterUnicorn.

Yes it does seem that walkers have been using a crossing they are not entitled to use.

British Transport Police have said in the past that that is specifically not the case at Dalwhinnie: "I was the BTP officer on the radio on Tuesday and just to confirm to everyone and yourself, the foot crossings at Ben Alder and Achnashellach are recognised legal foot crossings and to alleviate any concerns concerns BTP are not going to be at either crossing reporting people for trespass."

In more general terms, British Transport Police would appear to disagree with NR's standpoint on private level crossings, according to what the Ramblers Association report: "British Transport Police appears to take a different view, indicating that they would not regard the use of a formal crossing point as constituting criminal trespass".

So if the BTP aren't going to nick you for it, that rather pulls the rug out from under NR's rigid stance.

 

[eastdyke]

Someone on another forum pointed out that Dalwhinnie station is managed by Abellio. Would that make the footbridge their responsibility - at least as far as its upkeep is concerned?

Not sure but Abellio are responsible for the Day to Day Safety Management of the station, including the footbridge.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/safety-authorisation-abellio-scotrail-ltd-2020-03-09.pdf

Part extracts:

Safety Authorisation confirming acceptance of the Safety Management System
and the Provisions adopted by the infrastructure manager to meet requirements
necessary for the safe design, maintenance and operation in conformity with
Directive 2004/49/EC and applicable national legislation
......
1. Authorised railway undertaking
Legal denomination: Abellio ScotRail Ltd Infrastructure manager name: Abellio Scotrail Ltd Acronym: ASR
......
Validity from: 13 March 2020 to: 09 March 2025 Particulars of infrastructure(s):
Station operator only- 345 stations within the Abellio Scotrail Ltd

So if the BTP aren't going to nick you for it ...

That is what they said in 2013, has that been validated more recently?

 

[ejstubbs]

There are similar statements referenced elsewhere online, and the Ramblers seem confident that the situation hasn't changed. But I'm not aware that anyone has gone to BTP within, say, in the last twelve months to get it confirmed (again).

I think a key point is that 2013 is ten years after the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 was passed*, which appeared to have been the trigger for NR to start putting up blue "Authorised users only" signs on every private level crossing in Scotland. If BTP hadn't changed their stance in those ten years, I don't know of anything that would have changed since 2013 to make them think otherwise.

* The act makes no mention of railway crossings. According to the Ramblers that's because NR were obstructive during the consultation period when the bill was being drafted.

 

[eastdyke]

There are similar statements referenced elsewhere online, and the Ramblers seem confident that the situation hasn't changed. But I'm not aware that anyone has gone to BTP within, say, in the last twelve months to get it confirmed (again).

I think a key point is that 2013 is ten years after the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 was passed*, which appeared to have been the trigger for NR to start putting up blue "Authorised users only" signs on every private level crossing in Scotland. If BTP hadn't changed their stance in those ten years, I don't know of anything that would have changed since 2013 to make them think otherwise.

* The act makes no mention of railway crossings. According to the Ramblers that's because NR were obstructive during the consultation period when the bill was being drafted.

So nothing contemporary (to now) from BTP then?

There are other types of facility that seem not to be mentioned in 'The Act' but which would also benefit from protection under 6 (1)(d). Aviation, Military etc.
'The Railway' generally falls within the definition of Statutory Undertakings.
Statutory Undertakings are mentioned within Schedule 1 to the act, paragraphs 9 & 10

Statutory undertakings
9 No path order shall be made which would delineate a path over land in or over which there is apparatus belonging to or used by any statutory undertaker for the purpose of the undertaking unless the undertaker has consented to the making of the order.

10 Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld and any question whether it is so withheld shall be determined by Ministers.

I would like to see drawings of the relevant Core Path as originally made in the Path Order.
As noted up-thread, the Core Path currently shown is routed via the underpass. If there has been an amendment then when, by whom and on whose authority?
Highland Council will know.

 

[IanXC]

This article adds a few points about Network Rail's view on the situation:

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

CCTV installed at Ben Alder level crossing as row continues​

Janet Ault, health, safety and environment director of Scotland's Railway – part of Network Rail – told the watchdog in correspondence: "The level crossing is private and not a public right of way as has been suggested. Locking the gates that secure the crossing ensures that access over the live railway is restricted to the authorised user - the factor of Ben Alder Estate - and the emergency services only.

"The decision to restrict public access was taken after the level crossing manager became aware of increasing levels of unsafe public use of the line. Having carefully assessed the safety position against the relevant legal background, the decision to close is based on public safety grounds and has not been taken lightly.

"The alternative pedestrian route via a nearby underbridge remains available to all people who require to cross the route. We are aware that there may be attempts to climb over the locked gate, and are working with the British Transport Police and local operational staff to monitor and discourage this.

"Prior to locking the crossing gates, weldmesh fencing was attached to further deter pedestrians from climbing over the gate.

"I appreciate that restricting access over this crossing will be inconvenient for residents and visitors who have been accustomed to using it and we apologise that more notice was not given ahead of the closure.

"The purpose of our action is to protect the community and our passengers from harm. We are keen to work with the community council and other stakeholders to explore ways of improving signage at the station and on the alternative route so that people seeking access are aware of the "appropriate walking route to use."

A Network Rail spokesperson said: “This crossing is not an access point for the general public, and increased usage by the public creates additional risks to their safety from passing trains.

“As a result we have locked the crossing to prevent unauthorised use. CCTV has also been installed to help monitor who is using the crossing.

“An alternative crossing point is available a mile further along the line for those seeking to access the hills on the other side of the railway.

From which we can draw that Network Rail expect that they will be able to gather evidence from the CCTV, which I doubt they will have installed without consulting the BTP and/or their legal team.

We can also draw that the matter is being dealt with by Scottish Network Rail/Scotland's Railway teams, indicating that any suggestion that this is any kind of attempt to apply English legals to a Scottish situation is almost certainly incorrect.

Finally there are specific statements that the usage of the crossing has been increasing ("increased usage by the public") and that misuse of the crossing has also been increasing ("the [local] level crossing manager became aware of increasing levels of unsafe public use"). These will have had a significant impact on the level crossing risk assessment, which is likely to be what has triggered these actions.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

This article adds a few points about Network Rail's view on the situation:

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

From which we can draw that Network Rail expect that they will be able to gather evidence from the CCTV, which I doubt they will have installed without consulting the BTP and/or their legal team.

We can also draw that the matter is being dealt with by Scottish Network Rail/Scotland's Railway teams, indicating that any suggestion that this is any kind of attempt to apply English legals to a Scottish situation is almost certainly incorrect.

Finally there are specific statements that the usage of the crossing has been increasing ("increased usage by the public") and that misuse of the crossing has also been increasing ("the [local] level crossing manager became aware of increasing levels of unsafe public use"). These will have had a significant impact on the level crossing risk assessment, which is likely to be what has triggered these actions.

Regarding the Network Rail Statement.

Pretty standard paragraphs light on actual details. Note to user: please ensure you enter the correct location and not the template location or the location the last time this paragraph was used.

"The decision to restrict public access was taken after the level crossing manager became aware of increasing levels of unsafe public use of the line. Having carefully assessed the safety position against the relevant legal background, the decision to close is based on public safety grounds and has not been taken lightly.

Show us your workings out. How much has use increased, what and how numerous are the instances of observed unsafe public use (rather than merely public use). Are those instances as a result of the recent actions of Network Rail (locking the gates and attaching mesh fencing) or long-standing (people crossing whilst looking at mobile phone, wearing headphones, not closing gates after use etc). If the locks were removed and the mesh removed, would that result in reduced levels of unsafe use?

And so on for the remainder of the NR statement in a similar manner.

If the estate factor issued a public statement making a general authorisation, giving all visitors to / users of the estate authorisation to use the crossing would that affect the situation?

Ongoing reference to 'Public Right of Way' is misleading. There are very few PRoW in Scotland, at least in terms of them being documented. Reference has been made to 'Core Paths' etc but these are a relatively new phenomenon. In England, if you can show you have had unfettered access to a route for 20 years or longer, you can make a claim to the local Highway Authority for it to be added to the definitive map (which may itself take decades but the claim is important). In Scotland this has never been necessary due to the long standing freedom to roam.

If an access track existed prior to the railway (authorised by Act of Parliament), are there instances where the access rights owner could close the railway, due to their own safety assessment that usage of the crossing by trains is affecting their safe use of their pre-existing track?

In this specific instance I assume that legal access by authorised users has not been rescinded, merely locks applied and users given keys / notified of the code.