Horton in Ribblesdale station to get footbridge, with lifts.

[BrianW]

If you can find any, try Googling Beccles Station milk turntable, I think that is the sort of thing you are meaning.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Suffolk_line#/media/File:Movable_Platforms_at_Halesworth_Station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1034529.jpg
That kind of thinking- maybe not that design but that kind of ingenuity.
It's also reminding me of various swingbridges; transporter bridges; Oxford Rewley Road Sheepwash Bridge- again NOT the designs but the 'outside the box' thinking.

 

[Tio Terry]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Suffolk_line#/media/File:Movable_Platforms_at_Halesworth_Station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1034529.jpg
That kind of thinking- maybe not that design but that kind of ingenuity.
It's also reminding me of various swingbridges; transporter bridges; Oxford Rewley Road Sheepwash Bridge- again NOT the designs but the 'outside the box' thinking.

I've just Googled Beccles Station Photographs and found a couple of pictures there which show the milk bridge in use.

 

[BrianW]

Thank you Tio Terry,
I can see some 'modifications' would be necessary- health and safety, automation etc but given the will ...
I also note regarding Access For All (A4A) that there is a cost to every change made but it is a laudable objective and the law. I somehow doubt whether it will extend to accessing Pen-y-Ghent.
Sorry to be getting a bit contentious there.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Out-of-box/ blue sky/ lateral thinking/ mad-brain/ ridiculous idea?
Thinking of this great landscape/ relatively few trains location (also applicable some other places- maybe St Erth?)- how about a platform level crossing that sweeps out across the tracks?
I'm thinking (hoping?) that there are few tragedies at Level crossings related to disabled etc folk- so similar issues related to 'train coming' and similar (though different) technology to a lift, more like an openable bridge?
I just can't get away from thinking how a footbridge is going to look- not very like a Victorian 'thing of beauty' though not personally averse to something 21st Century. Thinking Falkirk Wheel- dramatic engineering, not a standard 'box'.

One of the reasons a footbridge is being provided at a relatively lightly-used station is that the stone trains from the nearby sidings will require the existing at-grade crossing to be blocked for long periods. A Brockenhurst-style swing-bridge would have the same issue.

 

[yorksrob]

Travelling through again, it really struck me how the location lends itself to a subway.

You approach from below and are already on the same level for a subway before getting in to the station.

 

[DB]

Not sure how practical lifts are given that the station is unstaffed.

Examples have bene given elsewhere, but those all seem to be in populated areas where there will be staff relatively nearby. This doesn't apply here - they could be many miles away.

 

[edwin_m]

Travelling through again, it really struck me how the location lends itself to a subway.

You approach from below and are already on the same level for a subway before getting in to the station.

A subway is likely to cost a lot more than a bridge. Essentially for a bridge you provide some foundations and the structure is pre-fabricated but a subway needs excavation under the track, possibly affecting the track itself. A lot more work on site is particularly significant in a remote location. Also subways tend to be uninviting places and drainage needs to be considered, although if ground level at one end is genuinely below however deep the subway needs to be (including the bottom of the lift shafts!) then perhaps that's less of a concern.

So subways tend to be installed these days only if a bridge is impossible for some reason. While a bridge may not be ideal here, it's a very low-use station and the extra cost could probably be better spent elsewhere.

 

[geoffk]

I'm not sure that it's essential for a station to be staffed for it to have lifts. Gleneagles is an example off the top of my head.

Also Low Moor and Kirkstall Forge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also Low Moor and Kirkstall Forge.

And all of Metrolink that has them (many of the ex-BR stations).

 

[yorksrob]

A subway is likely to cost a lot more than a bridge. Essentially for a bridge you provide some foundations and the structure is pre-fabricated but a subway needs excavation under the track, possibly affecting the track itself. A lot more work on site is particularly significant in a remote location. Also subways tend to be uninviting places and drainage needs to be considered, although if ground level at one end is genuinely below however deep the subway needs to be (including the bottom of the lift shafts!) then perhaps that's less of a concern.

So subways tend to be installed these days only if a bridge is impossible for some reason. While a bridge may not be ideal here, it's a very low-use station and the extra cost could probably be better spent elsewhere.

I would have thought that the subway would be built in pre-fabricated concrete sections (rather like the new calvert at Cowley Bridge juntion) and inserted in a comparatively short space of time. Once in place, you can then do all the surrounding construction with the railway open.

The slope at Horton is so steep, you could effectively have the whole thing open to sunlight from one end - it would be more like an occupation bridge than a subway in that respect.

 

[YorksLad12]

The slope is steep, but that's part of the problem. You'd need enough space to at least double back on yourself to make the ramp slope gentle enough for access to/from the northbound platform given that you'd have an even lower starting point once you've tunnelled out your underpass. You'd still need lighting for services/passengers after dusk. You wouldn't win many friends with Three Peaks runners either.

A bridge over the existing crossing, with steps halfway along and a ramp starting at the northern end of the platform will be more obtrusive but if done sympathetically (i.e. not the usual NR modern metal monstrosity and allowed to blend in with the foliage) it would be quicker, cheaper and possibly safer.

 

[DB]

(i.e. not the usual NR modern metal monstrosity and allowed to blend in with the foliage

Can't see that they'd get away with that here! Although it is difficult to see how they can produce something sympathetic if it has to incorporate lifts.

Some of the other bridges on the line are genuine Midland Railway bridges rescued from elsewhere. I believe that the Kirkby Stephen one came from Guiseley (on the Ilkley line), where it had to be removed during electrification (the replacement at Guiseley is taller and has solid sides).Think the Settle one was from somewhere else, too.

 

[yorksrob]

The slope is steep, but that's part of the problem. You'd need enough space to at least double back on yourself to make the ramp slope gentle enough for access to/from the northbound platform given that you'd have an even lower starting point once you've tunnelled out your underpass. You'd still need lighting for services/passengers after dusk. You wouldn't win many friends with Three Peaks runners either.

With a bridge, three peaks runners would have to ascend twice as high to use a footbridge as they would to use a subway, so I don't see why they would prefer that. Yes, you would need lighting for services after dusk, but you do on the rest of the station anyway, and there is plenty of room to build a double back slope, if that is the preferred method to ascend to the platform.

Even if you did decide to install a lift - you would only need one from the subway to the down platform, whereas with a bridge, you'd need one for each platform.

 

[edwin_m]

With a bridge, three peaks runners would have to ascend twice as high to use a footbridge as they would to use a subway, so I don't see why they would prefer that. Yes, you would need lighting for services after dusk, but you do on the rest of the station anyway, and there is plenty of room to build a double back slope, if that is the preferred method to ascend to the platform.

Even if you did decide to install a lift - you would only need one from the subway to the down platform, whereas with a bridge, you'd need one for each platform.

I don't know the site myself, but looking at pictures there is a steep bank behind the "far" platform, as might be expected for a station where the railway follows a contour on a slope. This would need digging back several metres to make a big enough hole for the stairs and lifts, probably requiring a prolonged closure to bring in that sort of excavation plant. If not washed away by the rain in the meantime, it would then need a major retaining wall, all of which would have to be built in situ even if the subway itself could be pre-fabricated and jacked in. I can't find an overall view of the forecourt, but it seems to be a sloping approach road up to the level of the platform, and if that's correct then much of it would need to be dug out to make the space to launch said subway under the tracks. The railway needs to be on a fairly high embankment for a jacked structure to work.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't know the site myself, but looking at pictures there is a steep bank behind the "far" platform, as might be expected for a station where the railway follows a contour on a slope. This would need digging back several metres to make a big enough hole for the stairs and lifts, probably requiring a prolonged closure to bring in that sort of excavation plant. If not washed away by the rain in the meantime, it would then need a major retaining wall, all of which would have to be built in situ even if the subway itself could be pre-fabricated and jacked in. I can't find an overall view of the forecourt, but it seems to be a sloping approach road up to the level of the platform, and if that's correct then much of it would need to be dug out to make the space to launch said subway under the tracks. The railway needs to be on a fairly high embankment for a jacked structure to work.

The station approach is quite a way below the track at the point it turns right and continues to ascend towards the station building.

Yes, there would need to be work to excavate behind the platform, but you wouldn't need access across the tracks all of the time. Plant and materials could be moved in and out at the end of the day.

 

[reb0118]

Think the Settle one was from somewhere else, too.

From Drem on the East Coast Main in East Lothian.

 

[Taunton]

Bearing in mind that you can be alongside the S&C for a couple of hours and never see a train, would a couple of crossovers and just one platform not suit?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bearing in mind that you can be alongside the S&C for a couple of hours and never see a train, would a couple of crossovers and just one platform not suit?

There's a public footpath over the line that would need to be provided for - indeed, this, not the train service, is the main reason for the requirement (the footpath is very busy as it's on the "Three Peaks" route). The issue is that the barrow crossing will be blocked for long periods by a freight, during which time it isn't going to be possible to serve that platform anyway.

That said, I doubt a public footpath bridge is required to have lifts, particularly given that the path itself is unlikely to be wheelchair accessible?

Looking at a map, I wonder if the railway would have any luck having the footpath relocated away from the station, which might allow a cheaper, non-lift-fitted bridge to to provided?

 

[YorksLad12]

There's a public footpath over the line that would need to be provided for - indeed, this, not the train service, is the main reason for the requirement (the footpath is very busy as it's on the "Three Peaks" route). The issue is that the barrow crossing will be blocked for long periods by a freight, during which time it isn't going to be possible to serve that platform anyway.

That said, I doubt a public footpath bridge is required to have lifts, particularly given that the path itself is unlikely to be wheelchair accessible?

Looking at a map, I wonder if the railway would have any luck having the footpath relocated away from the station, which might allow a cheaper, non-lift-fitted bridge to to provided?

I'd assumed that the bridge would tie in with the footpath, but the lift would be for passengers to/from the platform, if no ramp access on the northbound platform. I'd also assumed a ramp on the eastern side of the station rather than a lift, as there's (a bit) more space to play with.

I did randomly think last night (must stop eating cheese...): is there such a thing as an automatic barrier, but for foot traffic? It'd be a lot cheaper, if so!

 

[edwin_m]

I'd assumed that the bridge would tie in with the footpath, but the lift would be for passengers to/from the platform, if no ramp access on the northbound platform. I'd also assumed a ramp on the eastern side of the station rather than a lift, as there's (a bit) more space to play with.

I did randomly think last night (must stop eating cheese...): is there such a thing as an automatic barrier, but for foot traffic? It'd be a lot cheaper, if so!

I've seen stations in Germany that have a red and white barrier between tracks that moves into position (can't remember how) when a train approaches. But some idiot would probably just stand on the track in front of it waiting for it to open...

However level crossings of all types are to be avoided.

Bearing in mind that you can be alongside the S&C for a couple of hours and never see a train, would a couple of crossovers and just one platform not suit?

That would cost more than a bridge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The reason for wanting to close the barrow crossing isn't safety (though I'm sure it is contributory), it's because a freight will be blocking it for long periods. So even a fancy LC with barriers won't solve the problem - a bridge (or subway) is needed whatever.

 

[YorksLad12]

I've seen stations in Germany that have a red and white barrier between tracks that moves into position (can't remember how) when a train approaches. But some idiot would probably just stand on the track in front of it waiting for it to open...

Sad, but true.

 

[edwin_m]

Here's the pedestrian crossing barrier I referred to above. I think the gate is on wheels and moves parallel to the tracks.

bahnhof durmersheim - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[158756]

There's a public footpath over the line that would need to be provided for - indeed, this, not the train service, is the main reason for the requirement (the footpath is very busy as it's on the "Three Peaks" route). The issue is that the barrow crossing will be blocked for long periods by a freight, during which time it isn't going to be possible to serve that platform anyway.

That said, I doubt a public footpath bridge is required to have lifts, particularly given that the path itself is unlikely to be wheelchair accessible?

Looking at a map, I wonder if the railway would have any luck having the footpath relocated away from the station, which might allow a cheaper, non-lift-fitted bridge to to provided?

If you look where the path goes west of the station I'd imagine it to be impossible for wheelchair users. The only people needing to use the lift will be getting on the train (very occasionally, given how few passengers there are)

A non-lift-fitted bridge isn't going to be built though, footpath or no footpath, because wheelchair access to the platform must be retained, and according to the OP the barrow crossing is a safety issue.

How often is the line actually going to be blocked anyway? Nearby Arcow Quarry produced three trains last week - not three a day, three a week.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That fact had passed me by, apologies. OTOH I suppose both lines will be blocked so no one will miss trains. This seems a ton of money for a modest gain.

OTOH I did have a near miss with a 125 excursion on that crossing years ago...

Re-reading the article it seems the lifts were not actually required but the Parish Council asked for them.

I suppose after all Cheddington got a new non-accessible bridge not that long ago, I don't think lifts are a requirement for an existing station if you're just replacing a footbridge like for like, though normally it is a sensible opportunity to add them.

 

[DB]

Can anyone think of a modern station bridge with lifts which isn't a monstrosity? I won't expect a monstrosity will be acceptable here, so it will be interesting to see how they manage it.

 

[YorksLad12]

If you look where the path goes west of the station I'd imagine it to be impossible for wheelchair users. The only people needing to use the lift will be getting on the train (very occasionally, given how few passengers there are)

Idiot that I am, I tried to work out how many passengers per train there are at Horton. 18,968 passengers (2018-19 figures) divided by 5,252 services (15 calls per weekday, an extra on Saturday and 10 on Sundays) equals... not that many. But the 2018-19 figure is nearly 20% higher than the 2013-24 figure. And the only other option really is private car.

To be fair, I don't think many people do the Three Peaks in wheelchairs, so the path west of the station doesn't come into it; the route really is downhill/eastwards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can anyone think of a modern station bridge with lifts which isn't a monstrosity?

Nope. Specifically the extra height for the lift towers tends to make them ugly (can't they use piston lifts and bury the mechanism underground?)

I won't expect a monstrosity will be acceptable here, so it will be interesting to see how they manage it.

Cladding it in limestone bricks might make it tolerable as it'll fade into the background of the mountains?

 

[ainsworth74]

At the risk of being branded a heretic I've idly wondered if at a station like this whether a barrow crossing wouldn't make more sense...

 

[Bletchleyite]

At the risk of being branded a heretic I've idly wondered if at a station like this whether a barrow crossing wouldn't make more sense...

It presently has a barrow crossing and always has had. The problem is that a new freight service will be introduced which requires the train, to access the siding, to be plonked across it for a considerable period of time before reversing in. The public footpath across said crossing is very busy (it's part of the Yorkshire Three Peaks route), and so this presents a safety issue (IOW it's not entirely unlikely that with their path blocked on a timed walking challenge that hillwalkers might try to squeeze between or under wagons, for instance).

If it wasn't for the footpath I reckon the barrow crossing would be fine, the station itself is very quiet, and I think the freight will be blocking the northbound line so nobody would need to reach the platform for a train while it was there.