• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Closure of the level crossing between Dalwhinnie and Ben Alder estate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
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.

So why do level crossings incidents cause more problems and more incidents than any where else?
Just look at all of the RAIB reports that involve level crossings.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,024
I know this has partially been discussed, but, if the station footbridge is nearby (albeit in poor condition), wouldn't it be common sense for NR to produce a cost estimate for its' repair to decent standards?

Then the gate to the down platform and short footpath back to Ben Alder Road could be built with the agreement of the landowner at very little cost.

The landowner seems very happy to contribute to the cost of local amenities enabling tourists to enter their estate and the surrounding area.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,805
Location
Sheffield
I know this has partially been discussed, but, if the station footbridge is nearby (albeit in poor condition), wouldn't it be common sense for NR to produce a cost estimate for its' repair to decent standards?

Then the gate to the down platform and short footpath back to Ben Alder Road could be built with the agreement of the landowner at very little cost.

The landowner seems very happy to contribute to the cost of local amenities enabling tourists to enter their estate and the surrounding area.
It has a nasty attack of rust which will probably be expensive to restore if the structure is weakened, but as a heritage asset grants are likely to be available.

Picture taken on visit this June.

20210625_110928 (2).jpg
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
2,024
It has a nasty attack of rust which will probably be expensive to restore if the structure is weakened, but as a heritage asset grants are likely to be available.

Picture taken on visit this June.

View attachment 101966
Well, NR, as the infrastructure manager, are going to have to either replace or repair the bridge soon enough, given they've just taken the crossovers out of action which allows use of the upper platform in both directions. They'd better start applying for those grants then!
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
Not sure if anyone has spotted this, but there is a 2015 Google street view panoramic viewpoint photo taken part way along what would be the route of anything from the 'back' of the station.

It shows not only the nature of the route but the level differences as well. Rotate and zoom for a very good idea.

Theoretically a new footbridge completely over the railway [ie outwith the fences] would not need much in the way of ramp or steps on the Ben Alder estate side. Still would need, amongst other things, a few £m of course.


FWIW I am pretty sure that NR would not be up for creating any 'de facto' core path route through railway land as the actual core path route avoids railway land altogether [although the full history of that line on the map held by Highland Council still poses me questions!]
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,462
It has a nasty attack of rust which will probably be expensive to restore if the structure is weakened, but as a heritage asset grants are likely to be available.

Picture taken on visit this June.

View attachment 101966

Having visited Dalwhinnie myself a few years ago I must say I wasn’t aware the crossing was usable as a right of way. That being said, I was visiting the distillery rather than Munro-bagging. The stopping train service at the time was 3 trains each way per day, seemingly timed to suit the visiting times at the distillery (although thinking about it, my logic may be back to front.) It’s notable that in the photo, the time is 1109 and the next Up train is at 1552. From memory the service on the route is roughly hourly each way.

Comments about heritage lines forced to ban opening windows from 2023 are nonsense. I think if you actually measure the positions of structures, very very few will be within the 2ft or so adjacent to the space occupied by passing rolling stock that would cause a risk of contact to a head or arms positioned outside the vehicle. What it does is ensure railways are taking the action they already should be - ensure no foliage is brushing the trains, whilst recognising the much lower risk by operating at 25mph as opposed to 125mph.

The Ffestiniog quite definitely has opening windows on its rolling stock - in fact it has a number of ‘fully open’ coaches for use in the summer season. Passengers have to take care given the tight clearances but again the operating speed of 15-25mph means the risk is minimal in practice.
 

Justin Smith

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Sheffield
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.
How many people get their heads knocked off ? Bear in mind that about 600,000 people die every year.
Why, after railways have been here for nearly 200 years have we decided that it is now far too dangerous to let people stick their heads out of a train window ?
I do not like bars on windows, or being unable to open them, or being treated like an imbecile. Whatever happened to personal responsibility ? If someone is stupid enough to lean right out of a train window without looking first it could be argued that's their own stupid fault, and you cannot legislate against stupidity, not without significant collateral damage.

So why do level crossings incidents cause more problems and more incidents than any where else?
Just look at all of the RAIB reports that involve level crossings.
Are we talking vehicle crossings or foot crossings ? But it's all relative anyway though isn't it ? Exactly how dangerous is any particular crossing ? It is too easy to just say we'll shut the crossing (and inconvenience umpteen thousands of people over the coming years), that is a disproportionate reaction, like so much these days, Covid and otherwise.....
At the end of the day if a train has an accident with a car in almost all cases the nobody on the train will be injured, not seriously anyway. The car driver might be, or even killed, but if it's their own fault (which it invariably is) why is that deemed so unacceptable that we have to inconvenience thousands of people by shutting crossings when getting on for 2000 are killed on the roads every year ?
Disproportionate......
 
Last edited:

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,219
Location
Bristol
Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?
The law changed (or enforcement of it got stronger). There's not a lot the railway can do about it in the short term.
At the end of the day if a train has an accident with a car in almost all cases the nobody on the train will be injured, not seriously anyway.
In the recent accident at Whittlesea it was a matter of very quick thinking by the train driver and no small amount of luck that nobody was killed.
The car driver might be, or even killed, but if it's their own fault (which it invariably is) why is that deemed so unacceptable that we have to inconvenience thousands of people by shutting crossings when getting on for 2000 are killed on the roads every year
The logical extension of this is that those who run the lights and get away with it should be executed. Proportionate?
 

option

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2017
Messages
636
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.

It is not a "fetish" it is a fact, and the fact NR are trying to close a load of crossings is all the proof you should need.
Opening windows are, I believe, already banned on all mainline trains and will effectively be so on Heritage lines by, I think, 2023.
Can anyone on here give me any stats collected by NR as to the calculated chance of anyone being seriously injured or killed on this (or any other) crossing in any one year.
I would be amazed if they could.

What's your reference for this?


H&S requires you to do risk assessments, & then put in place realistic mitigations to deal with the realistic risks that you've identified.
The risks on the mainline, for passengers, are massively more than those on a heritage line (much higher speeds, more lineside equipment, etc)



Of course NR are closing crossings, because they've identified major risks at them.

What I would say, is that in this particular case, NR haven't been small-p politically astute enough to have done so whilst providing a new crossing point at the station.
The current bridge will need replacing anyway, for electrification.
'New bridge, better/safer access, getting ready for electrification' would have been positive news, & the closing of the crossing at the same time would have been barely noticed.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,219
Location
Bristol
What I would say, is that in this particular case, NR haven't been small-p politically astute enough to have done so whilst providing a new crossing point at the station.
The current bridge will need replacing anyway, for electrification.
'New bridge, better/safer access, getting ready for electrification' would have been positive news, & the closing of the crossing at the same time would have been barely noticed.
Electrification ready for when? Dalwhinnie is a very, very long way down that particular list.
 

option

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2017
Messages
636
Electrification ready for when? Dalwhinnie is a very, very long way down that particular list.

by 2030-35

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/decarbonising-scotlands-railway/ *


Local/commuter services first, then the easy bits of other lines, leaving any problematic bridges/tunnels/terrain to special designs or battery.

* there's 2 station bridges on the short-term list in that article that are on the HML, with 2023/4 dates.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,219
Location
Bristol
by 2030-35

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/decarbonising-scotlands-railway/ *


Local/commuter services first, then the easy bits of other lines, leaving any problematic bridges/tunnels/terrain to special designs or battery.

* there's 2 station bridges on the short-term list in that article that are on the HML, with 2023/4 dates.
You'll forgive me for not holding my breath. There's a key passage on page 30 of the actual report:


This action plan does not set out detailed cost information by route: that analysis has yet to be undertaken. Additionally, there are costs of traction which are attributable to this plan (some 148 diesel-only trains, with 394 carriages which would need to be replaced by 2035), nor does the plan make efficiency assumptions. With ambitions of such magnitude regarding rail decarbonisation it is imperative that there is a relentless focus on cost and delivery efficiency
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,219
Location
Bristol
& how does that prevent them from replacing a bridge?
It doesn't per se, but somebody has to pay for it, and the electrification project hasn't got any money behind it yet. So it can't be rebuilt as part of prep work for electrification. Therefore you either have somebody having to pay a lot more for features that may never get used, or building a bridge that might have to be replaced before it's life expired. Both are difficult to justify when the railway's books are not exactly in fine health.

If somebody is told to find an alternative route to the level crossing, they're probably going to recommend improving the path and signage to the existing road bridge c.1 mile away, and diverting the right of way (or Scottish equivalent, excuse my ignorance) through said bridge as it will be much cheaper.
 

option

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2017
Messages
636
It doesn't per se, but somebody has to pay for it, and the electrification project hasn't got any money behind it yet. So it can't be rebuilt as part of prep work for electrification. Therefore you either have somebody having to pay a lot more for features that may never get used, or building a bridge that might have to be replaced before it's life expired. Both are difficult to justify when the railway's books are not exactly in fine health.

If somebody is told to find an alternative route to the level crossing, they're probably going to recommend improving the path and signage to the existing road bridge c.1 mile away, and diverting the right of way (or Scottish equivalent, excuse my ignorance) through said bridge as it will be much cheaper.

1) Scottish electrification is being funded & contracted on a rolling basis, not government chosen individual projects. ScotGov are basically giving NR £Xm per year with an agreed list of schemes. So it could come out of that budget.
Good explanation of how that works here;

2) Why would a new bridge have to be replaced before it's life expired? It would be built to current standards to enable electrification. Are they going to change massively in the next 40 years?

3) That route further south may not be possible;
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,805
Location
Sheffield
When I took a picture of the bridge in June I wasn't aware of the brewing issue or I'd have taken more. Although rusty it didn't appear in imminent danger of collapse. Reinforcement and restoration might be preferred until electrification arrives.

However, there must be a point where that would be uneconomic with electrification imminent. Any new bridge would have to be built to electrification standard.

However that still leaves the issue of creating a new western public access to the station. Would it be in the railway's interest to do so to create an effective public right of way across the station? Marketed right as a station to start a walk it should be.

(Those of us in Sheffield know the difficulties we have with the footbridge across the station linked to an access at the back. Nice idea, unintended consequence is the number using it to cross the station with no intention of using trains, adding to pedestrian congestion. Unlikely to be an issue here.)
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,219
Location
Bristol
However, there must be a point where that would be uneconomic with electrification imminent. Any new bridge would have to be built to electrification standard.

(Those of us in Sheffield know the difficulties we have with the footbridge across the station linked to an access at the back. Nice idea, unintended consequence is the number using it to cross the station with no intention of using trains, adding to pedestrian congestion. Unlikely to be an issue here.)
Presumably those of you in Sheffield are also aware of just how indeterminate 'imminent electrification' can be....
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
I believe that there's now a serious proposal to build a pump-storage hydro scheme with the upper reservoir in a corrie high above Loch Erricht. If this goes ahead the construction traffic will probably require the existing crossing to be replaced by a bridge...
 

Justin Smith

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Sheffield
Of course NR are closing crossings, because they've identified major risks at them.
What is your objective definition of "major risk" ?

The logical extension of this is that those who run the lights and get away with it should be executed. Proportionate?
TBH I don't even know what you mean by this.

You don't have to lean out all that far nowadays .....
View attachment 102064

Taken from: https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/fatal-accident-balham
Are you saying that, in days gone by, when it was not considered dangerous to lean out of a window (or at least not dangerous enough to get rid of opening windows) that the static clearance was less ? I find that impossible to believe. What has changed is not the "static clearance", or even the actual danger, it's society's inconsistent and increasingly irrational attitude to risk. What has happened over Covid reflects this perfectly, a good Pub Quiz question in fact. What have Covid and closing level crossings (most have which have been open since the railway was built up to 200 years before) got in common ?

What's your reference for this?
"It is not a "fetish" it is a fact, and the fact NR are trying to close a load of crossings is all the proof you should need.
Opening windows are, I believe, already banned on all mainline trains and will effectively be so on Heritage lines by, I think, 2023.
Can anyone on here give me any stats collected by NR as to the calculated chance of anyone being seriously injured or killed on this (or any other) crossing in any one year.
I would be amazed if they could."
https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/safety-first-droplight-windows-heritage-and-charter-trains
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I believe that there's now a serious proposal to build a pump-storage hydro scheme with the upper reservoir in a corrie high above Loch Erricht. If this goes ahead the construction traffic will probably require the existing crossing to be replaced by a bridge...

That is Corrie Bhachdaidh, which is on the south side of the loch and inaccessible from the Dalwhinnie access point. Construction traffic for that will come up Loch Rannoch. It’s also at early planning stage - a few years for that, another few years for consent, then detailed design... probably a decade away. (The same company has been planning, and now has consent for, a similar facility near Loch Ness. That’s been on the cards for about 10 years and hasn’t started construction yet).
 

Moderating team

Forum Staff
Global Moderator
Joined
21 Jan 2008
Messages
4,915
Just a gentle reminder this thread is to discuss the closure of the level crossing between Dalwhinnie and Ben Alder estate.

A separate thread should be used or created (as appropriate) to discuss anything not directly related to the topic of this thread please.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
This court case would appear to have some relevance to this situation at Dalwhinnie. Putting aside the question of where the route exactly goes in this case (is there an alternative as in this railway case?), the reasoning for doing so would appear to be similar; safety. It'll be interesting to see the outcome, seems to be a significant case in as far as these legal provisions go.

The Guardian said:
A legal battle has broken out over attempts by a Highland landowner to ban hill-walkers from a path in a major test case over Scotland’s right-to-roam legislation.

Highland council and the Ramblers Association are challenging an attempt by Donald Houston, a businessman who owns a large area of the Ardnamurchan peninsula on the west coast of Scotland, to shut off a significant and scenic access route.

Houston argues that vehicle and machinery operations at the timber yard make it too dangerous to allow public access, and that under health and safety legislation he has to either prevent public access or close down the business.

 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
This court case would appear to have some relevance to this situation at Dalwhinnie. Putting aside the question of where the route exactly goes in this case (is there an alternative as in this railway case?), the reasoning for doing so would appear to be similar; safety. It'll be interesting to see the outcome, seems to be a significant case in as far as these legal provisions go.



I would be very interested to see the pleadings in the application by the landowner since safety is not a reason to restrict the statutory access rights in se.
 

Grinner

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2013
Messages
89
Location
Paisley
I would be very interested to see the pleadings in the application by the landowner since safety is not a reason to restrict the statutory access rights in se.
The story has hit the news again:


Scotland's transport minister has been asked to intervene in a row over the closure of a railway crossing in the Highlands.
Network Rail Scotland locked gates at the crossing on the Highland main line at Dalwhinnie, south of Inverness, last year.
It had been used by walkers and cyclists to reach Ben Alder - one of Scotland's remotest Munros - and other mountains and hills in the central Highlands.
Ramblers Scotland, along with other groups, have called on Jenny Gilruth to urge Network Rail to revisit its decision.
 

Justin Smith

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Sheffield
Just a gentle reminder this thread is to discuss the closure of the level crossing between Dalwhinnie and Ben Alder estate.

A separate thread should be used or created (as appropriate) to discuss anything not directly related to the topic of this thread please.
What I do not understand about this comment is that this whole thread is about the application (excessive in my view) of H&S legislation and/or disproportionate risk aversion.

The Guardian said:
A legal battle has broken out over attempts by a Highland landowner to ban hill-walkers from a path in a major test case over Scotland’s right-to-roam legislation.
Highland council and the Ramblers Association are challenging an attempt by Donald Houston, a businessman who owns a large area of the Ardnamurchan peninsula on the west coast of Scotland, to shut off a significant and scenic access route.

Houston argues the vehicle and machinery operations at the timber yard make it too dangerous to allow public access, and that under health and safety legislation he has to either prevent public access or close down the business.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top