Durham, ticket barriers removed

[BMIFlyer]

Any indication of where Dewsbury will get barriered, as I can't see any sensible place without causing one problem or another. I'm also not sure if the bridge forms a right of way between the two sides of the station, too?

Unsure as of yet, but it is a franchise requirement and needs to be completed 'soon'. The ideal solution would be to barrier the up platform (towards Hudds) and have people manning the access gate on the bridge.

I understand a solution may be forthcoming in due course. The right of way is a bit of a moot point, as the station closes after the last service departs, and the right of way ceases to exist. This may enable the right of way to be permanently removed although as of yet I've not heard any more details.

What I can add is that TPE have commenced peak hour station manning with revenue staff ensuring those people accessing platforms have tickets to travel.

 

[IanXC]

With regards to other stations and barriers, Dewsbury and Manchester Airport stations will both receive barriers too in the near future.

Personal opinion is that Warrington Central needs them as does either Preston and or Lancaster too.

And still Hull doesn't come up!

The revenue walking off that station must be significant, when you remember an Off Peak Day Return from Cottingham is £4.90 for a journey of 7 minutes, and Brough £6.20 for 11 minutes.

The station layout is very, very conducive to barriers, effectively having not changed since the days before BRs Open Stations policy.

I can only sunmise that the station being TPE managed leads that franchise to not to have the inventive to do so, given their service level.

 

[Crossover]

Unsure as of yet, but it is a franchise requirement and needs to be completed 'soon'. The ideal solution would be to barrier the up platform (towards Hudds) and have people manning the access gate on the bridge.

I understand a solution may be forthcoming in due course. The right of way is a bit of a moot point, as the station closes after the last service departs, and the right of way ceases to exist. This may enable the right of way to be permanently removed although as of yet I've not heard any more details.

What I can add is that TPE have commenced peak hour station manning with revenue staff ensuring those people accessing platforms have tickets to travel.

I can assure you the station at Dewsbury doesn't shut and access to the bridge is maintained 24/7. Ticket office closes around 19:00 weekdays and the lifts are taken out of service, but that's about it. I have been on last services of the day to the station and there isn't a member of staff to be seen by then. Doors to the station have also been wide open on Christmas Day/Boxing Day when I have passed.

The problem is, whilst I can envisage the Hudds platform being barriered fairly easily (though the nearby doorway is narrow and there is access via the pub too), the Leeds platform presents more of a challenge. The only access to/from it is via the steps or lifts (when the latter are in service) with no level access. A barrier just round the ticket office wouldn't help as there is access to the bridge from Eightlands Road. Barriers at the bottom of the steps would be inadvisable for the obvious reason of causing a backlog onto the stairs and doing such doesn't barrier the lift either which is further along the platform

 

[Iskra]

Any indication of where Dewsbury will get barriered, as I can't see any sensible place without causing one problem or another. I'm also not sure if the bridge forms a right of way between the two sides of the station, too?

Dewsbury will be worth it in terms of discouraging suicides alone, it's a hotspot. The side exit through the pub will be an issue though.

Sheffield is another glaring omission.

 

[LowLevel]

Sheffield has already been tried and the council successfully blocked it.

 

[Iskra]

Sheffield has already been tried and the council successfully blocked it.

But, why?

 

[Darandio]

But, why?

On the grounds that they would affect the character of the building as well as the need to close a pedestrian footbridge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8374527.stm

Plans for ticket barriers at Sheffield railway station have been refused on the grounds that they would affect the character of the listed building.

East Midlands Trains wanted to install the barriers to combat fare evasion.

The move was widely opposed because it would have led to the closure of a pedestrian footbridge which links homes behind the station to the city centre.

Councillors agreed with a report which said the barriers would be detrimental to the station's Victorian facade.

The report said the barriers did "not provide sufficient width to cater for disabled access" and would "adversely affect the open character of the stone faced arches".

It added: "The scheme of works will create additional visual clutter and the proposed cabling works will be visually intrusive.

"As a result the proposals will have a harmful impact on the station's special architectural and historic interest."

Residents protested outside the town hall before Monday's planning meeting.

A group set up to fight the plans, Residents Against Station Closure, said they had received "overwhelming" support from residents, all the city's MPs and several community groups.

 

[800001]

But, why?

Because the footbridge at the station is a public right of way

 

[Iskra]

On the grounds that they would affect the character of the building as well as the need to close a pedestrian footbridge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8374527.stm

Thanks for the link.

Personally, I think that's ludicrous.

 

[Crossover]

Dewsbury will be worth it in terms of discouraging suicides alone, it's a hotspot. The side exit through the pub will be an issue though.

It does have its moments, though thankfully I have not heard of any as of late

 

[edwin_m]

The footbridge at Nottingham is also a public right of way, originally on another bridge to the east of the station buildings that didn't have platform access and was demolished in around 1990. Now it means they can't barrier this bridge or the route along platform 7 that became the right of way when the car park was built.

 

[Bungle965]

You are not going to like this.

Barriers are not supposed to compete on speed with anything. One useful feature of barriers is that they regulate passenger flow.

Obviously they should not be too slow, but they are not supposed to be faster than this or that.

The ones at Manchester Victoria which I think are built by Scheidt and Bachmann are one of the slowest I have used, you are often having to wait for the gates to open after you have grabbed your ticket.
Sam

 

[Busaholic]

The ones at Manchester Victoria which I think are built by Scheidt and Bachmann are one of the slowest I have used, you are often having to wait for the gates to open after you have grabbed your ticket.
Sam

Obviously not the Bachmann-Turner Overdrive version, then.

 

[ag51ruk]

A significant proportion of these staff are Northern's Carlisle security contractors...

They also don't cover the other entrances to the station.

The number of checks at the bottom of the link bridge lift has increased significantly in recent months, and there are now occasional checks at the platform 1 exit as well (by TPE)

 

[takno]

Dewsbury will be worth it in terms of discouraging suicides alone, it's a hotspot. The side exit through the pub will be an issue though.

Would the cost of a single to Batley really have any significant effect on that?

 

[BMIFlyer]

And still Hull doesn't come up!

The revenue walking off that station must be significant, when you remember an Off Peak Day Return from Cottingham is £4.90 for a journey of 7 minutes, and Brough £6.20 for 11 minutes.

The station layout is very, very conducive to barriers, effectively having not changed since the days before BRs Open Stations policy.

I can only sunmise that the station being TPE managed leads that franchise to not to have the inventive to do so, given their service level.

Hull has been tried. The council wouldn't let TPE remove the ornate railings between the concourse and the station platforms, next to the now removed Pumpkin Cafe.

The best thing they can do at the moment is random manning of the entrance to the platforms but I am not aware as to when that last occurred.

 

[IanXC]

Hull has been tried. The council wouldn't let TPE remove the ornate railings between the concourse and the station platforms, next to the now removed Pumpkin Cafe.

The best thing they can do at the moment is random manning of the entrance to the platforms but I am not aware as to when that last occurred.

I wasn't aware of that. It wouldn't have been ideal by any stretch but surely the gateline could have been installed a few metres in front of them. I didn't see anything in the latest batch of planning applications, perhaps once the new works have been completed the context will be lost to enough of an extent to persuade the council otherwise. The alternative would have been to move the entrance to the platforms to platform 7 I suppose.

Manual gate lines do take place but they don't set the same expectation in my view, and a manual gateline very rarely operates outside of the peak.

 

[Iskra]

Would the cost of a single to Batley really have any significant effect on that?

I believe it would (not necessarily the cost, but the added inconvenience), but we will have to wait and see. I would hazard a guess that across the network there is a correlation between a strengthening of physical barriers at potential suicide locations resulting in a lower number of deaths.

To date, "restricting access to the means of suicide" is the most common technique used by authorities and operators. The study quoted above highlights that, following years of research, "reducing accessibility to train lines through installation of physical barriers is the only suicide prevention strategy that has been followed by a decrease in railway suicide"

http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurepreventing-suicide-at-railway-stations-4627355/

 

[takno]

I believe it would (not necessarily the cost, but the added inconvenience), but we will have to wait and see. I would hazard a guess that across the network there is a correlation between a strengthening of physical barriers at potential suicide locations resulting in a lower number of deaths.

http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurepreventing-suicide-at-railway-stations-4627355/

That quote refers to fencing off of areas customers have no need to access, such as fast line platforms at stations where the services don't stop, or the quoted example of platform door barriers. It's possible that having to buy a ticket for the barrier might provide just enough breathing space or require just enough pre-planning to prevent somebody from going through with it, but the move towards contactless probably removes even that moot.

 

[island]

At Leeds it is the barriers which flash up a message which states categorically that your ticket "is not valid at this location" when it is. As you say, the staff will accept pretty much anything - in my experience, they rarely seem to look at the ticket at all.

I get this error when using that model of barriers (with the glass paddles and the orange plastic around the ticket slot) with any Two Together Railcard discounted ticket. Same at (to name but a few) Newcastle and Bradford Interchange.

 

[BluePenguin]

One of the biggest arguments I had was at Lewisham. I was told that my South Yorkshire to Penshurst (near Tonbridge) ticket was only valid via WCML, Milton Keynes, Kensington Olympia, Redhill to Penshurst. This route was pointed out to me on a map showing the London & South East lines.

I pointed out that, although the route they pointed out was permitted, the shortest route was, in fact, via St Pancras and the Lewsham avoiding line and going via the station added very little to the distance and was a permitted route.

Would you mind explaining your route from South Yorkshire to Penshurt via St Pancras and Lewisham in more detail? I am interested to know as I can't seem to get any other itinaries than for the one that you were told was the only valid route.

 

[CockneySparrow]

I visited both stations either side of Newark a week or two ago.

Retford - not gated
Grantham - gated (but gates were open when I visited; it was a weekend so this was unsurprising)

Peterborough has ticket gates but I have never seen them in operation (I'm never there at commuting times though).

King's Cross almost always has at least one set of ticket gates open (usually on the footbridge).

Kings Cross is always open, so is Peterborough

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Kings Cross is always open, so is Peterborough

I've encountered the barriers in operation at both - admittedly only twice at Peterborough, but about 80% of the time when I'm going through King's Cross...

 

[infobleep]

Unsure as of yet, but it is a franchise requirement and needs to be completed 'soon'. The ideal solution would be to barrier the up platform (towards Hudds) and have people manning the access gate on the bridge.

I understand a solution may be forthcoming in due course. The right of way is a bit of a moot point, as the station closes after the last service departs, and the right of way ceases to exist. This may enable the right of way to be permanently removed although as of yet I've not heard any more details.

What I can add is that TPE have commenced peak hour station manning with revenue staff ensuring those people accessing platforms have tickets to travel.

If it's a public right of way then removing it might not be so easy, unless there is a decent alternative that can be proposed.

I know South West Trains applied to have a public right of way through Guildford station closed between, from memory, 1.30 and 4am. This was approved and notices appeared detailing the diversionary route pedestrians would need to take - this being across the neaby road bridge. I'm could imagine SWT wishing the public right of way was gone completely but I imagine there would be some opposition to such a move.

 

[infobleep]

Because the footbridge at the station is a public right of way

The footbridge at Nottingham is also a public right of way, originally on another bridge to the east of the station buildings that didn't have platform access and was demolished in around 1990. Now it means they can't barrier this bridge or the route along platform 7 that became the right of way when the car park was built.

The footbridge at Guildford station is a public right of way. That didn't stop barriers being installed.

 

[JaJaWa]

Wonder if this was something to do with VTEC's decision (considering the date they were removed)...

From 1 July 2017, the Franchise Operator shall increase weekday gateline operating hours to 06:00 to 20:00 at King's Cross, Newcastle, and all stations with automatic ticket gates.

 

[IanXC]

Wonder if this was something to do with VTEC's decision (considering the date they were removed)...

That seems incredibly likely! And incredibly poorly worded by the DfT, compare to my redraft:

From 1 July 2017, the Franchise Operator shall increase weekday gateline operating hours to 06:00 to 20:00 at King's Cross, Newcastle, and all stations with automatic ticket gates in place at the commencement date of the franchise .

 

[edwin_m]

The footbridge at Guildford station is a public right of way. That didn't stop barriers being installed.

The arrangement at Guildford must have been agreed by an Inspector. The Inspector at Nottingham rejected the application to close the right of way.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives..../uploads/pins/row/documents/fps_q3060_5_3.pdf

 

[JaJaWa]

That seems incredibly likely! And incredibly poorly worded by the DfT, compare to:

Would be interested in how many “creative” solutions by train companies there are like this. Very dodgy.

 

[FQTV]

Would be interested in how many “creative” solutions by train companies there are like this. Very dodgy.

I've just realised that I have recently seen ex Durham staff at Darlington and Newcastle. I'd naively assumed that they were temporary cover. Possibly not.