Closure of the level crossing between Dalwhinnie and Ben Alder estate

[Justin Smith]

Perhaps the trains could slow just a bit, sacrificing a couple of valuable minutes.

Not sure if your post is ironic, which tells one all one needs to know about this subject.....
It is not necessary for trains to slow because crossings are safe enough as they are. I say safe enough because nothing is safe, as in 100% safe, a few Billion people on this earth should bear that in mind when discussing Covid......
My son and I sometimes go and see the trains at Scrooby accommodation* crossing, an electrified line with, I believe, a 125mph limit. I feel safer crossing that railway than I do crossing Penistone Rd in Sheffield, despite the fact that road has a 30mph limit (in theory).
TBH I still cannot quite understand how anyone could get hit when crossing a railway. I am not being facetious, we have a train which must follow a predetermined path and everyone knows where it will go, it cannot go anywhere else, one only has to move 6ft either way which would take a second or two, and it will miss you. And trains are big and very loud, even electrified trains.

* Actually I am not sure if it is an occupation or accommodation crossing !

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.

Depending on what they class as an "incident".
Is someone on the railway side of the gate, but not actually on the line, an incident ? If so those incident stats are meaningless. To me an incident on a level crossing would be a train missing a person by, say, 10 seconds. Though most people will cross a road if "only" missing a car by 10 seconds (maybe even 5 seconds) and not think that dangerous. And that is a vehicle which can change direction, a train cannot, which, actually makes it safer.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

@Justin Smith

Slowing down: no, not ironic.

People are still killed on crossings, I think much more must be done to reduce rail 'accidents', there seems to be an obsession with speed, and 'saving valuable seconds'. I predict that there shall sooner or later be a serious train wreck caused by excess (allowed) speed.

Much much much more needs to be done about road danger of course.

 

[Justin Smith]

@Justin Smith

Slowing down: no, not ironic.

People are still killed on crossings, I think much more must be done to reduce rail 'accidents', there seems to be an obsession with speed, and 'saving valuable seconds'. I predict that there shall sooner or later be a serious train wreck caused by excess (allowed) speed.

Much much much more needs to be done about road danger of course.

Bearing in mind 1600 people die every day, in fact over 1500 die just on the roads (and tens of thousands are seriously injured, many are life changing injuries) every year, I am not sure I agree with you. If we could cure all disease and stop the aging process (so that potentially we could all live forever) then you may be right, but we cannot, we are all going to die anyway, and that affects the balance in these calculations, or should in a rational world.

The fact that NR are closing crossings at the behest of the RAIB and the ORR does not prove your incorrect assumption.
Opening windows are NOT banned on heritage lines. I was taking photos out of the window of an L & B train the week before last.
I suggest you look at the numerous RAIB reports concerning incidents at level crossings, and NR do publish figures; perhaps you should do your own research.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/safety-first-droplight-windows-heritage-and-charter-trains

Mainline operators, and charter operators using heritage stock on the mainline, are already looking at ways to meet safety standards expected after December 2019, including fitting internal door handles and lockable windows. From 31 March 2023, we expect all heritage stock on the mainline to be fitted with internal door handles and lockable windows.
We want to see every heritage railway conduct a thorough risk assessment and then take appropriate and reasonably practicable measures including moving lineside structures such as signal posts away from the track, cutting back vegetation, restricted window opening to allow ventilation only, putting up prominent signs and making announcements over the public address system.
There are more than 200 heritage railways operating across Great Britain providing great days out for tens of thousands of people and employing thousands of people in a range of jobs. We are determined that they continue to thrive and passengers can enjoy a1950s/1960s experience with 21st Century standards of safety. (Mr Skinner is not, apparently, being ironic)

One assumes if they do not, or cannot, move structures away from the line, then the windows must be locked ? That's the implication is it not ?
Does it not also imply the windows cannot open far enough for anyone to put their head out of them, after all that really is incredibly dangerous isn't it.....

 

[Bill57p9]

I was on a mainline railtour yesterday and can confirm that the droplights still opened. However the operator was evidently petrified of any body part going outside of the window whilst the train was in motion. Speaking to the TM, NR are now so twitchy that a mainline train/operator could be reported if a window is open far enough for someone to lean out.

Anyway, back to Dalwhinnie LC, absolutely definitely double track, with single direction running on each line following the derailment earlier this year. To be fair to NRs risk assessment, due to the foliage, structures curvature of the track visibility when crossing in a westbound direction in 2018 left something to be desired.

 

[scarf ace]

From age 11 my children had to cross one of the busiest and fastest urban roads in Scotland to get to school. While I was relieved when they left school and no longer had to do it, it never occurred to me that it was a risk they should not take. And I cross the same road myself several times a week. It beggars belief that NR can't manage the risk of a quiet crossing in the middle of nowhere without shutting it down.

 

[Justin Smith]

From age 11 my children had to cross one of the busiest and fastest urban roads in Scotland to get to school. While I was relieved when they left school and no longer had to do it, it never occurred to me that it was a risk they should not take. And I cross the same road myself several times a week. It beggars belief that NR can't manage the risk of a quiet crossing in the middle of nowhere without shutting it down.

Exactly.

 

[neilmc]

Rights of way in Scotland are defined not by a register but by a set of conditions. Any route that meets these conditions is by law a right of way.

Since unlike England there's no definitive map of these rights of way, whether this route is a right of way, and whether the level crossing is a part of it is contentious. The Rights of Way society regard it as one, and as they're the kind of people who really enjoy getting stuck into these arcane points of law I tend to believe them. But, for a definitive answer the matter would have to go to court.

Network Rail might argue that it isn't a right of way, or if it is, the level crossing is not/should not be a part of it. They may also be hoping that no-one will feel strongly enough to put up the cash to challenge them. But also it seems that they've managed to upset half a dozen different walking/land access organisations, the local estate, council, and a few other people. It may not end well for them.

Hope it ends up extremely badly for them. This is disgraceful behaviour; Network Rail, on their website, profess to consult local authorities and countryside and rambling groups prior to closing crossings but I can see no evidence that such consultation has taken place here, and predictably there is a lot of local anger generated and multiple negative press reports. Maybe they are ignorant of Scottish law or just don't care unless it is somewhere in the south-east of England which is more in the eye of the general public and the English press?

And I just don't believe their commitment to public safety; every time I travel by train to Silverdale, and other stations on the Cumbrian Coast line, you are obliged to use a barrow crossing and dodge the nuclear waste trains, but it's much cheaper to hammer a gate shut than to provide a footbridge to definitely improve safety on a pretty busy line.

 

[Llanigraham]

https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/safety-first-droplight-windows-heritage-and-charter-trains

Mainline operators, and charter operators using heritage stock on the mainline, are already looking at ways to meet safety standards expected after December 2019, including fitting internal door handles and lockable windows. From 31 March 2023, we expect all heritage stock on the mainline to be fitted with internal door handles and lockable windows.
We want to see every heritage railway conduct a thorough risk assessment and then take appropriate and reasonably practicable measures including moving lineside structures such as signal posts away from the track, cutting back vegetation, restricted window opening to allow ventilation only, putting up prominent signs and making announcements over the public address system.
There are more than 200 heritage railways operating across Great Britain providing great days out for tens of thousands of people and employing thousands of people in a range of jobs. We are determined that they continue to thrive and passengers can enjoy a1950s/1960s experience with 21st Century standards of safety. (Mr Skinner is not, apparently, being ironic)

One assumes if they do not, or cannot, move structures away from the line, then the windows must be locked ? That's the implication is it not ?
Does it not also imply the windows cannot open far enough for anyone to put their head out of them, after all that really is incredibly dangerous isn't it.....

I suggest you read that again Mr Smith. It does NOT say they are banned. It says that they have to assess each case.

And yes it is dangerous if people could be killed. I refer you to the incident in Bath last year when a lady was killed and earlier when a young man hitting his head on a stanchion.

It is also worth noting that the Ffestiniog Railway have always had non-opening windows because of the closeness of solid slate walls, as has the Corris Railway. Do you consider them to be wrong?

 

[Falcon1200]

Hope it ends up extremely badly for them. This is disgraceful behaviour; Network Rail, on their website, profess to consult local authorities and countryside and rambling groups prior to closing crossings but I can see no evidence that such consultation has taken place here, and predictably there is a lot of local anger generated and multiple negative press reports. Maybe they are ignorant of Scottish law or just don't care unless it is somewhere in the south-east of England which is more in the eye of the general public and the English press?

The crossing has, presumably, not been closed to all users, merely unauthorised users, which, given that the crossing is not a public right of way, NR had every right to do; But I agree they should have taken actual use and local conditions into account far more than appears.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The crossing has, presumably, not been closed to all users, merely unauthorised users, which, given that the crossing is not a public right of way, NR had every right to do; But I agree they should have taken actual use and local conditions into account far more than appears.

In England too. They have closed quite a few crossings that were on public rights of way, but technically the crossing itself wasn't, leaving "orphaned" paths. They should not be allowed to do this without providing an alternative (footbridge/subway) which while expensive is pennies in railway terms. Imagine farmers being able to do this because there was a road bridge a mile away?

 

[Bald Rick]

Imagine farmers being able to do this because there was a road bridge a mile away?

They do! On several walks recently that I’ve be on public footpaths have been stopped up / signage removed - essentially disappeared.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They do! On several walks recently that I’ve be on public footpaths have been stopped up / signage removed - essentially disappeared.

Not legally. And the likes of the Ramblers put some effort into ensuring the problem is corrected when found, and in the meantime one can quite legally "trespass".

Network Rail can actually legally close the crossing and prosecute anyone who attempts to cross via the BTP.

Very, very different. De-facto, Network Rail can close public rights of way unilaterally, as with the crossing closed the right of way serves no purpose.

 

[Justin Smith]

Hope it ends up extremely badly for them. This is disgraceful behaviour; Network Rail, on their website, profess to consult local authorities and countryside and rambling groups prior to closing crossings but I can see no evidence that such consultation has taken place here, and predictably there is a lot of local anger generated and multiple negative press reports. Maybe they are ignorant of Scottish law or just don't care unless it is somewhere in the south-east of England which is more in the eye of the general public and the English press?

And I just don't believe their commitment to public safety; every time I travel by train to Silverdale, and other stations on the Cumbrian Coast line, you are obliged to use a barrow crossing and dodge the nuclear waste trains, but it's much cheaper to hammer a gate shut than to provide a footbridge to definitely improve safety on a pretty busy line.

TBH I think the danger from the use of barrow crossings is exaggerated. I can think of few places on the rail network where I would be concerned using a barrow crossing, maybe a 4 track 125mph mainline ? But even there I would feel safer than crossing Penistone Rd in Sheffield.....

 

[neilmc]

Yes, I have exaggerated the danger at barrow crossings. Common sense says you look both ways and you're unlikely to miss a train hurtling towards you. But with the safety pedantry meaning that lightly used crossings in remote areas get closed, even when that is severing a path, surely the risk albeit low is still higher at barrow crossings but nothing is done to mitigate that slight risk because it COSTS.

 

[philthetube]

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.

Most sensible people will thind, do I walk all this distance to save squeezing between two bits of wire, The fence alongside the gates, of do I avoid the risk of injury associated with walking along another area when tired, and feeling frustrated because I can see my destination, risking twisted ankles etc while tired, or do I pick the srafer option.

When you say you're certain, have you been present at an NR risk assessment where they've deliberately ignored data in order to reach their conclusion?

The issue is not deliberately ignoring risk assessments it is not doing a full assessment, including local impacts and local circumstance, the sort of people using the crossing etc.

It should be assessed the assessment should be published so that reasoned arguments can be made and the criteria used for closure can be examined and checked by all.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

The crossing has, presumably, not been closed to all users, merely unauthorised users, which, given that the crossing is not a public right of way, NR had every right to do; But I agree they should have taken actual use and local conditions into account far more than appears.

In the eyes of a lot of people, and probably Scots law, they might not have had a right to do it. I don't believe it's as clear cut as they say. The Crossing likely is a right of way, but if you'd read the posts above you'd know that whether it is or not can only be settled in court.

 

[Falcon1200]

In the eyes of a lot of people, and probably Scots law, they might not have had a right to do it. I don't believe it's as clear cut as they say. The Crossing likely is a right of way, but if you'd read the posts above you'd know that whether it is or not can only be settled in court.

I have actually read all 8 pages (although not in one go) and quite frankly am left none the wiser; Eg you say the crossing 'likely is a right of way', that is not exactly definitive ! The sign on the gate does say 'Authorised Users only', is that incorrect or (serious question) does authorised users now really mean anybody, given that people have been crossing there for years ?

 

[Justin Smith]

Yes, I have exaggerated the danger at barrow crossings. Common sense says you look both ways and you're unlikely to miss a train hurtling towards you. But with the safety pedantry meaning that lightly used crossings in remote areas get closed, even when that is severing a path, surely the risk albeit low is still higher at barrow crossings but nothing is done to mitigate that slight risk because it COSTS.

I agree, it's inconsistent, in fact it's hypocrisy.

 

[alf]

I hope that the same anger & passion expressed in these 8 pages against the Network Rail action is mirrored throughout Scotland on non rail sites & media pages.

 

[Bikeman78]

They do! On several walks recently that I’ve be on public footpaths have been stopped up / signage removed - essentially disappeared.

Not to mention putting bulls in fields with a footpath or bridleway running through them. When I was a teenagar I got chased by several. I've never leapt over a fence so fast in my life. Then I had to wait for them to get bored and move away to retrieve my bike. I wonder what the famer would be charged with if someone got killed by a stroppy bull.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not to mention putting bulls in fields with a footpath or bridleway running through them. When I was a teenagar I got chased by several. I've never leapt over a fence so fast in my life. Then I had to wait for them to get bored and move away to retrieve my bike. I wonder what the famer would be charged with if someone got killed by a stroppy bull.

Been there done that!

 

[hermit]

I hope that the same anger & passion expressed in these 8 pages against the Network Rail action is mirrored throughout Scotland on non rail sites & media pages.

The Ramblers Association Scotland have a petition which has attracted over 5000 signatures. Supported by Mountaineering Scotland and other interested parties.

 

[alf]

Blame Mrs Thatcher for bulls in fields with public footpaths.

The NFU, the farmers’ association, lobbied her to allow bulls in fields providing they were with a herd of cows. They persuaded Mrs T they were passive in that situation so she changed a law passed in the 1930s(I believe)

But renegade farmers do occasionally keep bulls alone in a footpath field. I have seen it.

And other farmers just put a “Warning bull in field” notice on field gates they want to stop walkers legitimately going through.
I saw those notices on the wooded fields west & south of Balcombe station. It was at a time when gas was being controversially drilled for there.
We braved the notices & kept very close to the boundary fence so we could leap over. No bull was there. And I enjoyed the succession of Southern trains belting past at 90 mph beyond the wood.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I have actually read all 8 pages (although not in one go) and quite frankly am left none the wiser; Eg you say the crossing 'likely is a right of way', that is not exactly definitive ! The sign on the gate does say 'Authorised Users only', is that incorrect or (serious question) does authorised users now really mean anybody, given that people have been crossing there for years ?

If you're looking for a definitive answer then there likely isn't one.

That route has been in use for hundreds of years and predates the railway. It undoubtedly meets the conditions for being a right of way. Whether the right of way includes a right to cross the railway at that crossing would have to be decided at court though.

The status of "private" level crossings in Scotland is questionable. The vast majority of these have been openly used by walkers since the railways were built. If it's now the case that walkers and cyclists are not regarded as authorised users by NR and aren't allowed to use them then I suspect that could also be challenged in the courts or even raised in parliament on the basis of how much it would obstruct land access.

 

[hermit]

Blame Mrs Thatcher for bulls in fields with public footpaths.

The NFU, the farmers’ association, lobbied her to allow bulls in fields providing they were with a herd of cows. They persuaded Mrs T they were passive in that situation so she changed a law passed in the 1930s(I believe)

But renegade farmers do occasionally keep bulls alone in a footpath field. I have seen it.

And other farmers just put a “Warning bull in field” notice on field gates they want to stop walkers legitimately going through.
I saw those notices on the wooded fields west & south of Balcombe station. It was at a time when gas was being controversially drilled for there.
We braved the notices & kept very close to the boundary fence so we could leap over. No bull was there. And I enjoyed the succession of Southern trains belting past at 90 mph beyond the wood.

Most of the serious incidents where walkers are injured or worse involve cows with young calves, most commonly when they have been spooked by a dog.

 

[Altnabreac]

Potentially bad timing by Network Rail to be high handed with crossing users at this point in time. 18 years since the Land Reform Scotland (Act) 2003 was passed and Network Rail up to now have been able to fudge the situation of continuing NMU access over UWCs by largely allowing it, while pretending it is banned.

Unfortunately for them the following nugget from the recently published SNP / Green Shared Policy Programme states:

We therefore agree that there shall be a wide-ranging consultation on land reform proposals with a spectrum of stakeholders for inclusion in a Land Reform Bill to be introduced by the end of 2023.

I think I can guess exactly what will be the top priority in the Ramblers Scotland and SRWS submissions to the new Land Reform Scotland Bill 2023.

 

[option]

https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/safety-first-droplight-windows-heritage-and-charter-trains

Mainline operators, and charter operators using heritage stock on the mainline, are already looking at ways to meet safety standards expected after December 2019, including fitting internal door handles and lockable windows. From 31 March 2023, we expect all heritage stock on the mainline to be fitted with internal door handles and lockable windows.
We want to see every heritage railway conduct a thorough risk assessment and then take appropriate and reasonably practicable measures including moving lineside structures such as signal posts away from the track, cutting back vegetation, restricted window opening to allow ventilation only, putting up prominent signs and making announcements over the public address system.
There are more than 200 heritage railways operating across Great Britain providing great days out for tens of thousands of people and employing thousands of people in a range of jobs. We are determined that they continue to thrive and passengers can enjoy a1950s/1960s experience with 21st Century standards of safety. (Mr Skinner is not, apparently, being ironic)

One assumes if they do not, or cannot, move structures away from the line, then the windows must be locked ? That's the implication is it not ?
Does it not also imply the windows cannot open far enough for anyone to put their head out of them, after all that really is incredibly dangerous isn't it.....

Heritage railways dealt with that issue years ago whilst relaying track. Many lines are on what were double-track routes, & so at structures that could be an issue, eg narrow overbridges, tunnels, they've laid their single track in the middle of the formation or slewed further away from the structure.
Lineside structures are also positioned at the edge of the formation, as it's then easier to access them & you don't have to worry about future track placement.

 

[D6130]

Heritage railways dealt with that issue years ago whilst relaying track. Many lines are on what were double-track routes, & so at structures that could be an issue, eg narrow overbridges, tunnels, they've laid their single track in the middle of the formation or slewed further away from the structure.
Lineside structures are also positioned at the edge of the formation, as it's then easier to access them & you don't have to worry about future track placement.

Nice photo....is that the Gloucestershire-Warwickshire Railway?

 

[Justin Smith]

Heritage railways dealt with that issue years ago whilst relaying track. Many lines are on what were double-track routes, & so at structures that could be an issue, eg narrow overbridges, tunnels, they've laid their single track in the middle of the formation or slewed further away from the structure.
Lineside structures are also positioned at the edge of the formation, as it's then easier to access them & you don't have to worry about future track placement.

View attachment 101685

Good news indeed, though it still does not invalidate my point (that it is a H&S nonsense to require coaches to have non opening windows), just like it is a H&S nonsense to close all these crossings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good news indeed, though it still does not invalidate my point (that it is a H&S nonsense to require coaches to have non opening windows), just like it is a H&S nonsense to close all these crossings.

The way to prevent people getting their heads knocked off is to fit bars on the windows. Southern did this in the latter days of the "slammers".

It does surprise me that GWR went for the complex locking solution on the Sleeper stock when they could have just added bars.