Fate of footpath crossings on electricfication?

[Minstermanc]

I live by the Manchester to Leeds line which is due to be electrified in the next few years.

There are a couple of footpath crossings nearby and I wonder what will happen to them. Is there an obligation to replace them with bridges or tunnels or are the crossings simply closed?

I must admit I have mixed feelings on this as I do use the crossings but, then again, there is a whistle board not far from our house so I would be quite happy to see an end to the train whistle!

Any responses would be much appreciated.

 

[rebmcr]

It won't be third-rail so I don't imagine they'll have to close.

 

[swt_passenger]

There are footpath crossings as normal with both types of electrification. Why ever wouldn't there be?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It won't be third-rail so I don't imagine they'll have to close.

But there are footpath crossings all over the third rail area anyway. They just have appropriate gaps in the con rails, as they do at any other level crossing for vehicles.

 

[Minstermanc]

I must admit I assumed for safety reasons no-one would be allowed to actually walk across the tracks so I have learnt something new today!

 

[Antman]

There are many foot crossings here in Kent where this is a third rail, not ideal perhaps but the costs of installing footbridges would be astronomical.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

The removal of footpath crossings is based on risk - if electrification brings more trains and or faster trains, then the increased risk may trigger work. The nominal order of works if this is is the case is normally:

• First choice - restored/improved sighting distances (tree clearing, etc.)
• Changes to railway signage (whistle boards, etc.)
• Closure, no diversion
• Closure and diversion
• Miniature warning lights
• Footbridge

 

[JB25]

There's a foot crossing between Kenley and Whyteleafe on the Caterham Branch Line and there are three foot crossings between Chipstead and Kingswood on the Tattenham Branch Line, all Third rail areas.

Have to be honest most people have common sense but there's been a few scary moments in my relatively young rail career already due to the publics sheer stupidity / impatience.

 

[tsr]

There's a foot crossing between Kenley and Whyteleafe on the Caterham Branch Line and there are three foot crossings between Chipstead and Kingswood on the Tattenham Branch Line, all Third rail areas.

There's also one on the Redhill-Tonbridge line that I know of, and an overgrown but (I think) technically still publicly available foot crossing near Salfords, which crosses 4 roads of the Brighton Mainline at pretty much its busiest point!

 

[Weary Walker]

There's also one on the Redhill-Tonbridge line that I know of...

Last time I took a train that way (on way to go for a walk) I counted over a dozen footpath crossings.

 

[mister-sparky]

There are loads between Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge in Kent.

Also between Eastbourne and Polegate in East Sussex.

All across third rail. They have the wooden bits either side of the actual path the same as at level crossings in most cases. They're perfectly safe. The only reason they're not is when an idiot is using them.

 

[brianthegiant]

The removal of footpath crossings is based on risk - if electrification brings more trains and or faster trains, then the increased risk may trigger work. The nominal order of works if this is is the case is normally:

• First choice - restored/improved sighting distances (tree clearing, etc.)
• Changes to railway signage (whistle boards, etc.)
• Closure, no diversion
• Closure and diversion
• Miniature warning lights
• Footbridge

Though from the point of view of local footpath users (incl the elderly, those with buggies etc) I suppose the order of preference would be something more like:

• First choice - restored/improved sighting distances (tree clearing, etc.)
• Changes to railway signage (whistle boards, etc.)
• Miniature warning lights
• Footbridge with ramp
• Footbridge without ramp
• Closure and diversion
• Closure, no diversion

'Diversion' options appear last, as I assume they tend to use use routes that already exist, though I suppose you might in theory divert to a straighter section of track, though this seems unlikely.

 

[Crossover]

I must admit I assumed for safety reasons no-one would be allowed to actually walk across the tracks so I have learnt something new today!

There are foot crossings all over the 4 track ECML, and I'm sure some are on 125mph sections! I'm also fairly certain I have read somewhere here one isn't boarded, or at least, not very well so.

I'm not sure I'd want to use them, mind!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Though from the point of view of local footpath users (incl the elderly, those with buggies etc) I suppose the order of preference would be something more like:

• First choice - restored/improved sighting distances (tree clearing, etc.)
• Changes to railway signage (whistle boards, etc.)
• Miniature warning lights
• Footbridge with ramp
• Footbridge without ramp
• Closure and diversion
• Closure, no diversion

'Diversion' options appear last, as I assume they tend to use use routes that already exist, though I suppose you might in theory divert to a straighter section of track, though this seems unlikely.

"Diversion" means " Diversion of the right of way to be via an existing alternative, like a bridge."

The modern railway would have to have no alternative at all to even begin to think about trying to get a new footpath crossing authorised, or indeed any public crossing at all.