Nottingham Station: Access to platforms from footbridge

[DelW]

First of all I would want to make it clear that I am usually absolutely against closing public footpaths or any public right of way. I am a member of the Ramblers, an organisation which actively campaigns against this. However, I also accept that in some cases, where an alternative route can be provided close by, that doesn’t significantly increase the distance, it can be an acceptable thing to do.

If it's such an issue, they should just build a dedicated footbridge across the station along the eastern end of the station buildings, to take a diverted pubic footpath from the car park access road directly across to Station Street. It could carry OHLE and save building a gantry for electrification.

It was stated earlier in the thread (e.g. post #24) that there was a separate dedicated footbridge carrying the right of way, until an earlier generation of railway management chose to remove it.

Assuming that's correct, the current problem is wholly of the railway's own making, and it/they should not be allowed to solve it by inconveniencing either passengers or legitimate users of the right of way.

As with HRE and bridge infills, it is absolutely unacceptable for quangos to ignore the laws that apply to the rest of us whenever it suits their current purpose, and they need to be regularly reminded of that fact.

 

[Trainman40083]

Pedantically, they provide footbridges for a right of way.
If it's a bridleway they have to provide the enormous, gently sloping approaches doubling back to allow horses to be led over it. There's one on the MML somewhere near Market Harborough that must have cost many millions. And a footbridge was provided on the WCML (Barn Lane, Milton Malsor) after complaints by dog-walkers even though there's no right of way to it that I can find, at a cost of, allegedly, £1,500,000.

Yes, I would say £1.5 million is about the right figure, probably including installation.

 

[edwin_m]

But then the tram people would have the same problems as EMR whenever they wanted to check their own tickets

They have to deal with that problem already in all their city centre stations, where the platform is effectively part of the pavement. It's been discussed upthread.

First of all I would want to make it clear that I am usually absolutely against closing public footpaths or any public right of way. I am a member of the Ramblers, an organisation which actively campaigns against this. However, I also accept that in some cases, where an alternative route can be provided close by, that doesn’t significantly increase the distance, it can be an acceptable thing to do.

How many people actually use this bridge as a through walking route? There is a close by alternative via the tram bridge but I understand the issues that NET may have with this. However, the route round by the main station entrance is not exactly adding miles to the walking route. Looking at the area on a map I would think most people will be walking to or from locations that could just as easily be accessed using other routes. Would the increased distances involved be any more than on footpaths is rural locations which have been rerouted around farm buildings, around new develops, or even just around the perimeter of fields. The fare dodging and antisocial behaviour does need to be stopped but that central bridge is very useful for passengers making connections, needing to reach platforms involving long walking routes via the main bridge.

To the north the footbridge leads via Trent Street into the Broadmarsh area which is much more pedestrian-friendly than it used to be. However, anyone using this right of way for anywhere further south, other than the new flats between Queens Road and the station, has to cross Queens Road itself. This is a very busy four-lane road and the nearest pedestrian crossings in either direction lead to the alternative crossings of the railway via Carrington Street or London Road, so there's very little reason for anyone to be using this right of way.

 

[ChrisC]

To the north the footbridge leads via Trent Street into the Broadmarsh area which is much more pedestrian-friendly than it used to be. However, anyone using this right of way for anywhere further south, other than the new flats between Queens Road and the station, has to cross Queens Road itself. This is a very busy four-lane road and the nearest pedestrian crossings in either direction lead to the alternative crossings of the railway via Carrington Street or London Road, so there's very little reason for anyone to be using this right of way.

That‘s exactly what I was thinking. Looking at a map of the area just about everyone using the central bridge as a right of way would be crossing the busy Queens Road at either Carrington Street or London Road. As much as I usually disagree with closing public rights of way this one is not really needed. Bringing it back for use by rail passengers and installing barriers at the end to stop fare evasion would benefit most people and very few would be inconvenienced.

 

[Yew]

One thing I have noticed is the almost total eradication of the local "ne'er do wells" wandering in - the beggars on the platforms, druggies in the platform toilets shooting up and passing packages and street drinkers having a fight have totally disappeared in a heartbeat, along with the associated conflict for staff and ill feeling for passengers.

That's odd, I've been using the station for 15 years, and not really noticed that as a particular problem?

Would the increased distances involved be any more than on footpaths is rural locations which have been rerouted around farm buildings, around new develops, or even just around the perimeter of fields.

I can't remember the last time I took a heavy backpack and large suitcase out for a walk in the countryside...

 

[ChrisC]

I can't remember the last time I took a heavy backpack and large suitcase out for a walk in the countryside...

I wasn‘t suggesting rerouting the pedestrian route to the station but the public right of way over the central bridge for people not using the station. My suggestion would reopen the central bridge but with barriers to prevent fare evasion, restoring easy access to the platforms for people carrying heavy backpacks or heavy suitcases. Anyone carrying a heavy backpack or heavy suitcase would actually be better using the main entrance as then they could use the lifts instead of having to carry them up and down stairs.

 

[Warrior2852]

They have to deal with that problem already in all their city centre stations, where the platform is effectively part of the pavement. It's been discussed upthread.

Yes and because they can't do as strict fare evasion operations in the city centre, they do much stricter ones on the station. I doubt they would be willing to give up probably their most effective area for it.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes and because they can't do as strict fare evasion operations in the city centre, they do much stricter ones on the station. I doubt they would be willing to give up probably their most effective area for it.

They could block one platform and send people using the right of way via the other one.

 

[duffield]

They could block one platform and send people using the right of way via the other one.

Are you familiar with the tram bridge? There isn't really a concept of blocking one platform, since it's a tramway people can and do just wander across (and sometimes along) the tracks freely at any point, particularly in the bridge/platform area.

 

[edwin_m]

Are you familiar with the tram bridge? There isn't really a concept of blocking one platform, since it's a tramway people can and do just wander across (and sometimes along) the tracks freely at any point.

They can check people coming off a tram while it's standing at the platform and blocking the way across. If they are checking people waiting with no tram there, then they can stop anyone who crosses the tracks onto the platform in question.

 

[Nottingham59]

They could block one platform and send people using the right of way via the other one.

Unfortunately, if it's a public right of way, you can't just legally divert people onto another route for your operational convenience.

 

[edwin_m]

Unfortunately, if it's a public right of way, you can't just legally divert people onto another route for your operational convenience.

Not even just onto the other platform less than 10 metres away? Diversions are actually pretty common, though I understand they have to be agreed originally. Perhaps if the right of way was diverted, this could include giving the tram operator the power to switch it to the other platform when necessary. But there may be something in the legislation that prevents this.

 

[Warrior2852]

They could block one platform and send people using the right of way via the other one.

This would require either extra staff to act as essentially traffic wardens, or make the revenue staff multitask dealing with passengers from one direction and right of way walkers from behind them simultaneously. Neither of which is particularly practical nor would NET likely agree to. You'd need staff telling them because the flexible nature of it would mean signs wouldn't work.

 

[Mugby]

I fully accept the need to tackle fare evasion, especially as Nottingham seems to have a particular problem with it but the middle footbridge has been a very useful point of entry for large numbers of people travelling legitimately with tickets.

For many years my preferred walking route from the city centre, let's say from the Victoria Centre, has been down Clumber Street, Bridlesmith Gate, Middle Hill and Trent Street. I'm sure many will say the extra inconvenience is minimal but it is inconvenient nonetheless!

 

[edwin_m]

For many years my preferred walking route from the city centre, let's say from the Victoria Centre, has been down Clumber Street, Bridlesmith Gate, Middle Hill and Trent Street. I'm sure many will say the extra inconvenience is minimal but it is inconvenient nonetheless!

Improvements to Middle Hill in the last few years have made this route more useable. But where do you go after Trent Street? Just into the station or do you continue across Queens Road, and if so where/how do you cross it?

 

[ChrisC]

I fully accept the need to tackle fare evasion, especially as Nottingham seems to have a particular problem with it but the middle footbridge has been a very useful point of entry for large numbers of people travelling legitimately with tickets.

For many years my preferred walking route from the city centre, let's say from the Victoria Centre, has been down Clumber Street, Bridlesmith Gate, Middle Hill and Trent Street. I'm sure many will say the extra inconvenience is minimal but it is inconvenient nonetheless!

I completely agree. The central bridge is a very convenient way to enter and leave the station from many parts of the city. What I have been trying to point out is that it’s not really a very convenient route as a through right of way for people not using the station. Therefore if EMR were permitted to install barriers it wouldn’t actually inconvenience that many people.

 

[Nottingham59]

Therefore if EMR were permitted to install barriers it wouldn’t actually inconvenience that many people.

All they have to do is extinguish the right of way ....

 

[ChrisC]

All they have to do is extinguish the right of way ....

Very difficult, but not impossible, if a suitable close by diversion is available.

 

[Nottingham59]

Very difficult, but not impossible, if a suitable close by diversion is available.

It would have easy to have built the tram bridge with a separate pedestrian route cantilevered out to the side, separated from the southbound tram platform by a fence.

But then NET weren't even prepared to build a wider footway to allow tram passengers to walk down alongside the tracks to cross over Queens Road and access Arkwright Walk and the Meadows directly.

 

[sprunt]

there's very little reason for anyone to be using this right of way.

"They want to" is a completely adequate reason for anyone to use any right of way.

 

[edwin_m]

"They want to" is a completely adequate reason for anyone to use any right of way.

You're effectively saying that the right of a few individuals out-weighs a wider societal benefit. I don't think that's absolute, there should be a way forward that involves a reasonable compromise.

 

[bunnahabhain]

"They want to" is a completely adequate reason for anyone to use any right of way.

You're 100% correct, they want to...use it to avoid going through the gateline and paying for a ticket.

What has surprised me most about this is how few genuine users of the right of way there are. Still, I'll await the ramblers association to come along and cost the industry £2m a year in lost revenue because of their right to womble through a station.

 

[Nottingham59]

You're 100% correct, they want to...use it to avoid going through the gateline and paying for a ticket.

What has surprised me most about this is how few genuine users of the right of way there are.

I used it the other day. It's the most pleasant and convenient route from the centre of town (around Weekday Cross) to get to the Cattle Market and cross the river on Lady Bay bridge. I was quite surprised by how many people were using it as a through route, with no access to the platforms.

Still, I'll await the ramblers association to come along and cost the industry £2m a year in lost revenue because of their right to womble through a station.

If it's costing that much, then it would be economic to build a dedicated 80m long footbridge to carry the RoW across the station.

 

[duffield]

You're 100% correct, they want to...use it to avoid going through the gateline and paying for a ticket.

What has surprised me most about this is how few genuine users of the right of way there are. Still, I'll await the ramblers association to come along and cost the industry £2m a year in lost revenue because of their right to womble through a station.

I hope you're not trying to pin that £2m loss on the ramblers' association, when the root cause is entirely down to the railway, for removing the original, separate, right of way bridge and diverting the right of way onto the shared bridge, thus creating today's revenue loss situation by its own actions.

The ramblers' association have an important principle to maintain, i.e. that there is an established legal route for diverting a right of way - which in fact the railway previously used, to its eventual detriment, in this specific case.

 

[Nottingham59]

the original, separate, right of way bridge

The 1915 OS map shows the old bridge crossing the station along the eastern end of the platform buildings. Which explains why the current route has that dog-leg along Platform 7 to reach Queen St via what is now the car park access road.

 

[bunnahabhain]

I hope you're not trying to pin that £2m loss on the ramblers' association, when the root cause is entirely down to the railway, for removing the original, separate, right of way bridge and diverting the right of way onto the shared bridge, thus creating today's revenue loss situation by its own actions.

The ramblers' association have an important principle to maintain, i.e. that there is an established legal route for diverting a right of way - which in fact the railway previously used, to its eventual detriment, in this specific case.

I'm not trying to pin it on anybody, but if nobody is using it for the genuine reason then the taxpayer shouldn't be stumping up for £2m of lost revenue. I think my right to ensure my tax is used sensibly overrules your right to walk over a bridge just to prove a point, even though it's not used for the reason you'd claim it is used for.

 

[duffield]

I'm not trying to pin it on anybody, but if nobody is using it for the genuine reason then the taxpayer shouldn't be stumping up for £2m of lost revenue. I think my right to ensure my tax is used sensibly overrules your right to walk over a bridge just to prove a point, even though it's not used for the reason you'd claim it is used for.

To make it clear, I do not use or need to use this bridge as a right of way personally. However, other posts on here do claim it actually *is* being actively used as a right of way, and - once again - there is a clear legal process for diverting or extinguishing rights of way. If you think it should be possible for a landowner to close a right of way *without due legal process*, you should try to convince your MP to get the law changed. As it is, this is the legal position.

I absolutely agree the taxpayer should not be stumping up for lost ticket revenue. Whoever was ultimately responsible for removing the separate right of way bridge should really be stumping up to replace it, given that was the cause of the entire issue.

As it happens, as the bridge was removed while the entire railway was in public hands, the ultimate financial responsibility for the expense of reinstating it lies with - the taxpayer. Whose government via railway management might or might not choose to recover such an expense from rail passengers.

Personally I'd be fine with the right of way being diverted around the front of the station, which would be by far the cheapest option, but I strongly support the right of others to object and for the legal process to be followed.

 

[eastdyke]

Some recent history of 'Footpath No. 28':

Footpath 28: Nottingham Midland railway station

Footpath 28 is a descendent of the Trent Bridge Footway, a historic pedestrian route from Nottingham City Centre to the River Trent crossing at Trent Bridge via footbridge over Nottingham Midland railway station between Station Street and Queens Road. This route has been carried over a number of bridges, firstly over the Westcroft Canal Arm, then a dedicated bridge over the Midland Railway and most recently a shared footbridge also over the railway. During the early 2000s a application for closure was made by the landowner, and defeated after a public inquiry.

Rights of Way online order details

Rights of Way order details, including start date notices, inquiry & hearing notices, decision letters and costs decisions.

www.planningportal.gov.uk

Which eventually leads to:

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20160107130802mp_/http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/row/documents/fps_q3060_5_3_on.pdf

The upshot is that the Network Rail planning permission for the alterations for re-development of Nottingham Station was approved 9th April 2009. The planning permission included for stopping up of the public right of way. There were objectors and a Public Inquiry resulted.
This link leads to the Public Inquiry Order Decision Dated 13th December 2011 which did not confirm the order for stopping up.

http://www.paul.sladen.org/footpath-no-28/fps_q3060_5_3.pdf

Selected extract:

44. Footpath 28 is unique and offers an experience which the alternative,
replacement, route cannot - a traffic free route within the city which in addition
provides a convenient link for a large number of users to and from residential
areas, work places and other facilities. It provides a short but valued
opportunity for pedestrians to get away from trafficked routes, with the added
amenity value of an historic environment. On balancing the merits and
demerits of the stopping up order, I find that the disadvantages and loss likely
to arise as a result of the stopping up of the footpath to members of the public
generally are such that permanent closure of Footpath 28 to the public is not
justified. Thus I conclude that the Order should not be confirmed

It should be noted that The Ramblers' Association was not the only objector in this case.

Does Network Rail have the appetite to re-visit the stopping up of this path? There would be a further Public Inquiry.

Disclosure:
As mentioned upthread, I do have an interest in being able to achieve the shortest distances possible to change trains and to access the Tram at Nottingham Station.

 

[Travelmonkey]

You're effectively saying that the right of a few individuals out-weighs a wider societal benefit. I don't think that's absolute, there should be a way forward that involves a reasonable compromise.

I keep hearing Stockport be mentioned in FB comments although not sure Nottingham has space for a smart card bucket,

 

[gangrenekid]

Yet another case of passenger convenience being put last by the railway. One wonders what the equality impact assessment and success criteria for this alleged "trial" looks like.

I'm not an enthusiast or anything. I just have to frequently use Nottingham station to get to work and this whole trial has really got me sick of travelling by train and hopefully next year when I pass my driving test (hopefully) I won't have to be on another train again.

I don't think they care about how much this inconveniences us whatsoever. I'm just tired of being treat like a scumbag by rail companies. Tired of being treat like the enemy when I pay good money. The hostility within every train station. I don't want to be inconveniencenced at all. I have enough problems and The minority of fare evaders arent my problem. It has made my commute way longer and more miserable.

I dream of the day when I can sit in a car. I've passed my theory so not long now!