Couple who live near railway are upset by noisy Class 37's.

[Peter Mugridge]

For my part I wish the council would get rid of the speed bump outside my bedroom window. It does not slow down the idiots or people who do not own the vehicle they are driving - they are still speeding. Meanwhile everyone else brakes and then accelerates again which is noise and fume pollution.

It might be easier than you think to get that removed, especially if you have any cracks in the house...

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/43103/speed-bumps-are-damaging-my-house---what-can-i-do-

Get a structural engineer in to record the tremors and assess the damage, then sue the council for the damage. You will be amazed at how quickly those speed humps will be removed.

Speed humps wreck the tyres and suspension of cars, leading to crashes, and the earthquakes from vehicles passing over them destroy the substructure of roads and damages adjacent walls and buildings.

 

[All Line Rover]

The pub with the best pub garden in Croydon (I think) had flats built overlooking the garden. The pub had objected to the planning application. The pub lost. A few years later and following complaints from the residents the pub is now forced to close the garden at something like 21:00. That IS unfair.

Why should a landowner be prevented from building flats on his land, and his legal rights thus compromised, by a neighbouring pub? To put it another way, why should a pub obtain rights - namely, an ability to refuse to allow housing to be constructed - over land it does not own? If the pub did not want the flats to be built, it should have bought the land from the landowner.

A pub is not comparable to the railway.

 

[GusB]

The buyers of those flats should be made aware at the point of purchase that there is a nearby pub with a beer garden, and should therefore be able to choose whether or not to purchase.

 

[Qwerty133]

Why should a landowner be prevented from building flats on his land, and his legal rights thus compromised, by a neighbouring pub? To put it another way, why should a pub obtain rights - namely, an ability to refuse to allow housing to be constructed - over land it does not own? If the pub did not want the flats to be built, it should have bought the land from the landowner.

A pub is not comparable to the railway.

Why should another land owner be stopped from using his land in the way he had been doing so for a long period of time by new neighbours who knew how the land was being used?

 

[All Line Rover]

The buyers of those flats should be made aware at the point of purchase that there is a nearby pub with a beer garden, and should therefore be able to choose whether or not to purchase.

That doesn't answer the question of why the pub should be able to unilaterally acquire rights over land it does not own. Requiring flat purchasers to "take into account" that there is a nearby pub with a beer garden is but one manifestation of a restriction of the landowner's rights, which needs to be justified: e.g. "the land is located in an area which has acquired the character of a "pub district" and can thus expect noise on some late evenings". I suspect this is not the case with the pub in Croydon; in which case I consider the outcome on the pub to be just as fair as the disturbance caused to lineside residents by the railway's operational requirements.

 

[All Line Rover]

Why should another land owner be stopped from using his land in the way he had been doing so for a long period of time by new neighbours who knew how the land was being used?

This is an oft repeated non sequitur in threads that touch on nuisances. The land owner is not "stopped from using his land" in a particular way. He is merely required to use his land in (essentially) a way that respects his neighbours. The context of the area does play a part, but it isn't the sole consideration and it can be difficult for one landowner to set the "context" of a wider area (less so, I believe, for the railway).

A resident of a hitherto isolated home doesn't obtain the right to continue throwing rave parties when a housing estate is built on an adjacent field.

 

[crewmeal]

"A couple in my village live next to a pub that's been there for 450 years. You can guess the rest"

Spot on! Why move into a flat that is next to a railway. Unless you're a refugee or forced into the flat for what ever reason then why move there in the first place?

 

[dk1]

Three flats where built next to the down side of the railway at Needham Market around 10yrs ago. There is a W board directly outside their balconys & although I have little sympathy it must be intrusive. The short toot was turned into 3 seconds a couple of years back & obviously from last December the hours of sounding them has expanded to 06:00-23:59. Wouldn't be my personal choice of residence but oerhaps they are living in hope of the safe crossing being built sometime.

 

[najaB]

Spot on! Why move into a flat that is next to a railway. Unless you're a refugee or forced into the flat for what ever reason then why move there in the first place?

Again - it is social housing so choice may have been limited, and they don't object to living near the railway (they used to live near it before), their objection is to a change which means they now have noisy locos starting up at 3 in the morning.

 

[scott118]

Three flats where built next to the down side of the railway at Needham Market around 10yrs ago. There is a W board directly outside their balconys & although I have little sympathy it must be intrusive. The short toot was turned into 3 seconds a couple of years back & obviously from last December the hours of sounding them has expanded to 06:00-23:59. Wouldn't be my personal choice of residence but oerhaps they are living in hope of the safe crossing being built sometime.

Although there's no whistle board, I wonder if there will be any similar 'noise' complaints, from the 65 houses (13 of which, being private..) that are currently being built, adjacent to the now, redundant box, at BND (Brandon)..?

 

[Llanigraham]

Where is BND?

 

[AlterEgo]

Where is BND?

http://lmgtfy.com/?iie=1&q=bnd+station

 

[najaB]

http://lmgtfy.com/?iie=1&q=bnd+station

I'm a fan of Let me Google that for you, but the forum rules say:

Please remember many members do not understand rail “jargon” (including acronyms, station codes and specialist terms). Such terms should be correctly defined the first time they are used; codes and abbreviations must not be made up.

Given the context, it wasn't immediately apparent that BND was being used as the station code for Brandon.

 

[DarloRich]

Again - it is social housing so choice may have been limited, and they don't object to living near the railway (they used to live near it before), their objection is to a change which means they now have noisy locos starting up at 3 in the morning.

we don't need facts here!

 

[L&Y Robert]

There is a W board directly outside their balconies & although I have little sympathy it must be intrusive. The short toot was turned into 3 seconds a couple of years back & obviously from last December the hours of sounding them has expanded to 06:00-23:59.

Whistle board is for moving traffic, isn't it? But in post 137 we have:

"Suddenly having engines starting up in the small hours and idling for a few hours every day is unpleasant, and probably not very foreseeable when they first bought the house".

So which is the problem? Is it both? Are the idling engines in a siding? If so, is it nearby? Fumes might be the worst problem if it's close to the house. Why do the engines have to run whilst doing nothing? Whenever I go to Penzance the engines are shut down as soon as the train arrives - I was impressed by that.

 

[causton]

Whistle board is for moving traffic, isn't it?

Yes. dk1 was talking about somewhere completely different.

 

[dk1]

Although there's no whistle board, I wonder if there will be any similar 'noise' complaints, from the 65 houses (13 of which, being private..) that are currently being built, adjacent to the now, redundant box, at BND (Brandon)..?

I can always pretend there's one there

 

[rebmcr]

Why do the engines have to run whilst doing nothing? Whenever I go to Penzance the engines are shut down as soon as the train arrives - I was impressed by that.

The Penzance trains are HSTs powered by Class 43s — much more sophisticated and reliable when built in the 1970s, and upgraded to modern engines in the 2000s.

The trains that have turned up at the couple's area are Class 37s, which are old, obsolete, and have major trouble getting started — to the point where it is a risk to power them down (and if they are, must be restarted hours before duty to make sure they are ready).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How many 37s are required for the services?

 

[najaB]

The trains that have turned up at the couple's area are Class 37s, which are old, obsolete, and have major trouble getting started...

Now, that sounds like a description of how I feel most mornings, but I do take objection to 'obsolete' - there isn't a proper replacement for them, hence why they are still in operation fifty years plus after they were introduced.

 

[sprinterguy]

How many 37s are required for the services?

Two in service, and a third acting as a hot spare. Sourced from a larger pool of locos, of course, and locos are rotated as exams or failures demand.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Two in service, and a third acting as a hot spare.

I'll have to try and find the line in the sectional appendix to see if class 67s are cleared for the route, I don't think that all of DBSs 67s are spoken for atm

 

[D365]

I'll have to try and find the line in the sectional appendix to see if class 67s are cleared for the route, I don't think that all of DBSs 67s are spoken for atm

How does that help when DRS operate the service?

And I doubt that the Class 67s are suitable for the costal route anyway. Route Availability might be the killer.

 

[rebmcr]

Now, that sounds like a description of how I feel most mornings, but I do take objection to 'obsolete' - there isn't a proper replacement for them, hence why they are still in operation fifty years plus after they were introduced.

They are obsolete though, at least in terms of modern expectations and design standards. Nobody would dream of designing an engine like that any more, and it's understandable for a layperson to be surprised at such a retention.

 

[najaB]

I'll have to try and find the line in the sectional appendix to see if class 67s are cleared for the route, I don't think that all of DBSs 67s are spoken for atm

They are, I looked it up a while back.

They are obsolete though, at least in terms of modern expectations and design standards. Nobody would dream of designing an engine like that any more, and it's understandable for a layperson to be surprised at such a retention.

They are old, but unless there is a replacement they aren't, by definition, obsolete.

 

[BestWestern]

They are old, but unless there is a replacement they aren't, by definition, obsolete.

Could it perhaps be said that their design is obselete?

 

[najaB]

Could it perhaps be said that their design is obselete?

Oh, most definitely. An obsolete design using obsolete technology. But IIRC there isn't a newer Class 3 locomotive with their RA which can replace them.

 

[IanD]

Why should a landowner be prevented from building flats on his land, and his legal rights thus compromised, by a neighbouring pub? To put it another way, why should a pub obtain rights - namely, an ability to refuse to allow housing to be constructed - over land it does not own? If the pub did not want the flats to be built, it should have bought the land from the landowner.

A pub is not comparable to the railway.

That's the nature of planning law. Anyone can object to an application and why not if it affects their property? The objection will be listened to by the planning authority but the outcome won't always be in the objectors favour.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Why should a landowner be prevented from building flats on his land, and his legal rights thus compromised, by a neighbouring pub? To put it another way, why should a pub obtain rights - namely, an ability to refuse to allow housing to be constructed - over land it does not own? If the pub did not want the flats to be built, it should have bought the land from the landowner.

A pub is not comparable to the railway.

But why should a business that has been there for hundreds of years be expected to modify or curtail its activities simply because someone recently decided to build flats right next to the beer garden ?. The area in question is predominantly shops and warehouses so not really appropriate for residential anyway. I cannot say whether the pub had the opportunity to buy the land or even if it could afford to - but should it have to ?. Besides the choice to impose change lay with the developers at the stage where development was envisaged.

If the onus were on the pub then imagine if a new house was built on land belonging to your neighbour - assuming there was space. You might well object to the planning application. Would you be prepared to buy the land just in case someone might object to your activities in your garden ?. If that were the case then the parallel for the railway would be that they should buy up all land for up to, say, 250 metres either side of the railway.

That is like saying the railway must no longer operate. I agree that if activities have recently changed - the use of 37s warming up in the early hours being the problem. Then the railway can be expected to modify its activities. But if the railway has not changed what it does for decades then who on earth is entitled to force them to change. If there was always a risk of externally imposed change like that then how much would you invest in a business if you knew anything could force you to close and move at any time ?.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I was just thinking earlier today about a new development built by the S&C near my in-laws in Appleby. Most of those resident have moved in since the line has been severed. Going to be a surprise when the first overnight freights come rolling through (if, of course there is enough traffic for them).