It’s interesting that replacing the crossing at Farnborough North seems to have been a lower priority than that at Gomshall? It’s a much busier station, with heavy use by college students during term time.
I’m surprised that a place like this has glass windows though! Although this side of Farnborough is perhaps a little less prone to Vandalism.
It's quite a leafy and prosperous area and the footpath goes to Frimley Green, which is similarly leafy. There's a decent footfall during the day, but of course it's dark evenings that are likely to be the problem.
Possibly cost and/or access reasons? Gomshall has no lifts, just the standard very lengthy ramped access, which presumably will have been significantly cheaper and easier to install, and of course there was ample space in which to construct it. I believe there was some purchase of adjacent land required for the Farnborough installation, so that may have played a part also.
That's true - I hadn't thought about the process of acquiring the land.
Good gosh, I used to use that station almost weekly back around 2018ish. Its unrecognisable now!
That's reassuring to hear.
Sadly the Frimley Green lot just don’t like having anything in their backyard (NIMBY). Usual complaints of “out of keeping with the local area” here and there without thinking of benefit to pedestrians.
Looking at the location a long Gomshall-style footbridge, as well as being an eyesore, would have overlooked the previously private back gardens of the houses in several roads east of the line. I imagine most householders would object to that, with good reason.
Hardly, given that the trees overlook the site to the west as well as from the end of Spencers Close, as seen in the attached screenshot of the video on Network Rail's website so the view of the footbridge would be obscured. Furthermore, the walls of most modern footbridges would be no shorter than 2m tall, so pedestrians wouldn't be able to peer onto residential properties anyway. If that's still unsatisfactory with residents then that is a 'you problem'.
The Gomshall bridge, which I'm just using as an example of a modern ramped bridge, has open railings to the ramps (and they are less than 2m high):
As these things go, yes, it is mellow and not too obtrusive. Another of the railway's quirks will vanish with the crossing - the little attendant's hut. The Gomshall bridge is a horrible eyesore and completely OTT (pun-ish) for the 'problem' it addressed. An interlocked crossing gate system should have been used.
funny how they always do their renders showing leafy trees and not bare wintertime ones.
Anecdotally speaking, a lot of foot/cycle traffic are between Frimley Green's village centre and the Farnborough suburbs or town centre, alongside leisurely travellers and fishers through/to the lake, so their paths aren't hugely interrupted. It may not be the most direct but it's the safest, much rather railway staff's designated footpaths to access depots, sidings or facilities from stations or lineside.
Not sure about that, given the above link to Network Rail's page doesn't appear there's a change to the plans, six/seven months on from the local Tories' announcement.
Gomshall station is noted for its staggered platforms at the down ends, where stationary trains would obscure the view of the other track, increasing the risk of a collision with a person, Network Rail reporting near misses in the lead up to bridge's construction. The Farnborough North crossing has interlocked gates yet has several instances of misuse, including a high-profile near miss with college students. Such a replication (minus the attendant's hut) could lead to similar headlines at Gomshall. FWIW, any structure to mitigate the risk of pedestrian level crossing (controlled or not) would be desired for today's Health & Safety culture on the railways.
The discussion from which you quoted was regarding the options for the crossing over the Ash Vale line at Frimley Green, not the one at Farnborough North. The Frimley Green options mentioned so far are for a ramped footbridge, or warning lights added to the existing level crossing.
Indeed.
There was a significant legal reason for the time it took to get a solution at Farnborough North. A glance at an OS map will show that the crossing and the path it links to is a bridleway. Horse riders and cyclists had a right to use it as well as pedestrians. I've seen discussions about this from user groups, rather than the railway, point of view. It might seem a trivial issue, but the network available to riders is fragmented and roads are often too dangerous to use as connections. Therefore the riding community (incl. the BHS) would have been keen to find a solution that includes them too.
I understand the point of principle in not extinguishing their rights easily, but has anyone in the last decade ever ridden a horse over that crossing?! Where would they be going!?
Hence an interlocked gate system could have been used at Gomshall to prevent crossing until the platforms were vacated by trains, rather than the gigantic structure that has been built, which also would have made step-free crossing vastly easier than the interminable bridge ramps. The usage of Gomshall (both type and numbers of passengers) is not comparable to Farnborough North in any case.
