I was thinking that it's a strange station to prioritise and an awful lot of money to provide a bridge and lifts given the passenger numbers that Horton has, but the foot crossing there also carries a popular public footpath so the expenditure may be justified. Ribblehead has similar passenger figures to Horton, so I wonder what the plans for the foot crossing there are? I'm also wondering how any new bridge(s) are going to be designed to match surroundings as the National Park and railway heritage groups are likely to object if they don't. That also leaves the much more well used stations at Settle and Appleby with heritage stepped footbridges and foot crossings that aren't supposed to be used outside station ticket office opening hours.
Normal practice with non-station footbridges is to provide steps only, unless it's for a bridleway or for a path that's useable by people who would struggle with steps. I imagine a footpath in that area wouldn't be PRM-friendly so it's more likely that the justification is to do with the station. The only non-station footbridge I can think of that has lifts is the one over the level crossing at Lincoln, so providing them for non-station useage would be highly exceptional.
One of the criteria to select a station for Access for All is to try to get reasonable geographic coverage of the country so people who can drive or be driven can access the rail network even if their nearest station isn't suitable. If that's the reason for this one then it presumably ticks the box for quite a large area although not a very big population.
I seem to recall that the land on one side of the station is a fair bit lower than the line (higher on the other side though). Would a ramped subway be feasible? Or is it too rocky on the high side?
Always amazes me that the UK always goes for the expensive solution (lifts) on this, when ramped subways are the norm elsewhere in Europe, largely due to the large loading gauge meaning the bridges have to be *much* higher.
Actually, here's a question - most new bridges I've seen have been built to the height that would allow OHLE to be installed. Wiring the S&C is so far into the distance nobody can even see it - so will money be saved by keeping it lower down?
A subway is generally far more expensive, partly because it's more disruptive. With a bridge the stairs and lift towers can often be built without affecting the railway, and the span craned in during a relatively short possession. Digging near and under the track is more complicated. There are also good reasons to prefer a lift to a ramp - less walking distance, construction concentrated in a smaller area, space for a ramp may not be available. I believe the cost isn't much different either when all the foundation work for a long ramp is taken into account.
Is it possible to build a bridge to suit current gauging limits, but design it to be easily jackable if ever OHLE is contemplated?
Anything's possible but taking the bridge away, lengthening the stairs and lift shafts, building new foundations where the stairs now land and putting it back would probably cost about as much as a new bridge. Considering the lifespan as mentioned and the amount of money being spent on a lightly-used station it seems sensible to spend only a little more and put people to minor inconvenience of a few more steps (after all there's a lift available instead!) to get a long-term solution.
