Struner
Member
@Dalwhinnie?
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 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.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.
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!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
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
How many people get their heads knocked off ? Bear in mind that about 600,000 people die every year.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.
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.....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.
The law changed (or enforcement of it got stronger). There's not a lot the railway can do about it in the short term.Whatever happened to personal responsibility ?
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.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 logical extension of this is that those who run the lights and get away with it should be executed. Proportionate?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
You don't have to lean out all that far nowadays .....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 ?
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.
Electrification ready for when? Dalwhinnie is a very, very long way down that particular list.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.
You'll forgive me for not holding my breath. There's a key passage on page 30 of the actual report:by 2030-35
Scotrail future plans for network enhancements
This video has some information about ScotRail's future plans for the network in Scotlandwww.railforums.co.ukhttps://www.railengineer.co.uk/decarbonising-scotlands-railway/ *Scotrail future plans for network enhancements
Does anyone know if they have any particular BEMU rolling stock in mind?www.railforums.co.uk
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.
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
You'll forgive me for not holding my breath. There's a key passage on page 30 of the actual report:
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.& 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.
That gantry has been there for something like 50 years hasn't it? Anyway, people drive their cars past me closer than that but the ORR isn't interested.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
Presumably those of you in Sheffield are also aware of just how indeterminate 'imminent electrification' can be....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....
What is your objective definition of "major risk" ?Of course NR are closing crossings, because they've identified major risks at them.
TBH I don't even know what you mean by this.The logical extension of this is that those who run the lights and get away with it should be executed. Proportionate?
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 ?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
https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/safety-first-droplight-windows-heritage-and-charter-trainsWhat'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."
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...
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.
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.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.
Highland landowner faces legal challenge over right to roam
Council and Ramblers Association clash with Donald Houston over access route to Ardnamurchan peninsula in western Scotlandwww.theguardian.com
The story has hit the news again: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.
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.
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.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.