Oswestry Branch Railway Restoration - The Truth

[Rat]

The story so far…

Once upon a time, long ago and in a far-off land called North Shropshire a wise and incorruptible King called Owen Paterson discovered that Railtrack wanted to sell off some of its remaining assets. Paterson had his eye on some old railway sidings as a place to build a shiny new medical centre for the small hamlet of Oswestry (the community had been gifted a district hospital, but it had been run down and bulldozed to make way for some shiny new private apartments – but that’s another story).

He also wanted to build some unimportant business units on the site, but there was no access so a new route would have to be created over a disused railway line. King Paterson persuaded Shropshire County Council to purchase the land, along with 8 miles of track, giving 3 reasons: Access to the new development, restoration of the Oswestry branch railway line (linking it to the main line in Gobowen), and some silly cycle route, despite a county council commissioned report saying that restoring the line could have a negative impact on bus services in the area and probably wouldn’t be financially viable.

But one day an evil witch cursed the whole project by proving that the land was contaminated and could not be used for development, so the council turned it into a children’s play area instead. A rundown building close by named the Cambrian Works was developed into a new medical centre magically called The Cambrian Medical Centre. It already had an access way over the railway, so the council spent some money installing a new one with a complex 3 way light controlled junction from the main road to the small car park that completely failed to provide adequate parking capacity for the centre.

Meanwhile, Shropshire County Council were busy creating a railway company/charity out of two antagonistic clubs that operated very limited services on 2 separate and unconnected stretches of the same line. With the help of Good King Paterson the Cross Border of Tourism Ltd and Cambrian Heritages Railways was formed, paid Directors installed, unemployed volunteers recruited to do the hard, physical work whilst councillors and MPs chaired steering group meetings.

The long process of restoring the line commenced, with Shropshire Council and Oswestry Town Council supporting the project because it will “bring many jobs to the town”. Shropshire Council allowed the new businesses to use its assets (the line, the works yard and the old station) for a peppercorn rate.

CHR even started running paid passenger services almost yards down the line using an old diesel shunter and a guard’s carriage coupled to their close relationship with the Office of Rail & Road (who managed to turn a blind eye to the service despite its direct flouting of an agreement not to take paid passengers over level crossings – there’s one right outside the yard on a restored bit of line).

Then, in 2012 CHR thought it was time to apply for a Transport and Works Act Order, giving them powers to run a service over level crossings – legitimately - and responsibilities for all rail over road and road over rail assets. Making absolutely sure that the existing trustees were well and truly ensconced in their positions the board proceeded with the application partly match funded by a grant from the Sustainable Transport Fund from their influence over Shropshire Council on the Department for Transport.

Some people of the land questioned how CHR would get an operational train and carriage over the level crossing on the A5 (a little used main trunk road from London to Holyhead) that cut across the line between Oswestry and Gobowen, but CHR reassured everyone that as the line was “built before the road” it had priority, and in any case, the rusted barriers could be brought down and the train cross in under 2 minutes. Alas, the ORR had a policy of no new or reinstated level crossings on the network. Unperturbed, CHR proceeded with the application and managed to succeed, despite the laser like scrutiny of then Transport Minister Chris Grayling.

During the application many correspondences were passed between individuals and government departments, including the ORR and the Department for Transport. In one, the ORR admitted – despite its close relationship - that the CHR application failed to mention the number of other level crossings on the line and the complex nature of the one into the Minor Injuries Unit at the Cambrian Medical Centre. The application was granted after the ORR stipulated that crossing the A5 and the A483 would not be done on the level (necessitating the construction of a bridge and a tunnel) and that a decision regarding the access to the Medical Centre would be done…at…some…later… point…

Sadly, a few years ago Good King Paterson had to leave the Kingdom to do charity work and was replaced by Good Queen Morgan, who answers all her emails and sends lots and lots of flyers out. The Queen also thinks the restoration of the line will bring love, happiness and jobs to the town, despite the rising cost to local rate/tax payers and the potential cost of tunnels and bridges over the main roads not even factored in.

In 2024 it was announced that £630,000 of funding was being made available to the Old Oswestry Railway Station to restore its crumbling exterior. More funding was required as the total estimate for (just) the exterior was £900,000 – and this is the 2nd time the building has been renovated. For some years now it has been empty and shrouded in scaffolding to prevent bits of it falling on passers-by, but it has been used for flats, a chocolate factory/retailer, a pharmacy and by…CHR. Shropshire Council have not yet identified users of the building once it has been restored, but it won’t be Tesco’s as they objected to the supermarket taking it on prior to the authority buying the land from Advantage West Midlands. Using its special relationship with Shropshire Council, CHR managed to renegotiate its contract with the authority and now no longer has responsibility for the maintenance of the interior, and centre of their operations.

Will former HS2 funds be used to construct a bridge/tunnel over the A5 to connect a single line service from Oswestry to the main line? Where is the “robust business plan” that argues for the restoration case? What happened to the document from the Secretary of State for Transport allowing a passenger service in Oswestry prior to 2017? Who does safety checks on level crossings over the A5 and A483? Who does the repairs if damage is done to the level crossings at the A5 and A483? Where is the independent report that concludes that a restored line would increase jobs in Oswestry and reduce reliance on car use? How much public money has this small heritage railway charity benefited from to date?

And so, my tale ends. This is the story of MPs, councils, and government departments all shuffling public money around in circles.

Many years ago in time there was talk of running binliner trains up to Blodwell quarry to fill it in.Now my maths is not that good but work out how long it would take for say 12 wagons to cross the A5 and the A483 crossings at slow speed twice once up and once back down times that by say four trains a day as there way no actual figures given of how many trains a day would use the line. There was absolutely no mention of putting in another form of crossings both A roads. Also the Cambrian Railway have had a Transport and Works Order for years (I know as I have read it) allowing them to the 100 to 200 yards out of the yard over Conney Green foot Crossing carrying fare paying passengers down to Middleton road bridge.

 

[CambrianView]

Many years ago in time there was talk of running binliner trains up to Blodwell quarry to fill it in.Now my maths is not that good but work out how long it would take for say 12 wagons to cross the A5 and the A483 crossings at slow speed twice once up and once back down times that by say four trains a day as there way no actual figures given of how many trains a day would use the line. There was absolutely no mention of putting in another form of crossings both A roads. Also the Cambrian Railway have had a Transport and Works Order for years (I know as I have read it) allowing them to the 100 to 200 yards out of the yard over Conney Green foot Crossing carrying fare paying passengers down to Middleton road bridge.

Hello Rat, and thank you for your contribution.

The Light Railway Order that the railway operator was using stated quite clearly that fee paying passengers were NOT to be carried over the level crossing, but they were. The Transport & Works Act Order granted in 2017 gives the railway operator responsibility for the whole line, not just 100 to 200 yards.

And on the subject of fairy stories, I heard at one stage there were discussions to have an elevated monorail service running through Oswestry town centre.

 

[CambrianView]

For some time now I have been trying to establish who has maintenance and safety responsibilities for the surface of unused (by trains) level crossings over the A5 and A483 for vehicle use in Shropshire. Regular readers of this thread will know that the actual track bed was bought and is owned by the local authority Shropshire Council and leased for 50 years to a charity called Cambrian Heritage Railways Ltd, who rely on volunteers and do not employ anyone directly.

This is what Highways England have to say on the matter:

"The ORR states here https://www.orr.gov.uk/guidance-compliance/rail/health-safety/level-crossings/legal-framework that crossing operators are responsible for the operation, maintenance and renewal of level crossings:
Crossing operators are responsible for the operation, maintenance and renewal of level crossings. Network Rail is responsible for the majority of level crossings on the mainline rail network in Great Britain. Level crossings must work correctly and be safe to use.
Highway authorities/roads authorities are the statutory bodies responsible for highways maintainable at the public’s expense, including but not limited to roads, byways, footpaths and bridleways.
These authorities have safety duties on the highway approaches to level crossings, including (but not limited to):

• creating, maintaining and improving highways (sometimes this is done via road safety audits)
• diversions and changing access to the highway (also known as ‘stopping up’)
• arrangements for works on the highways and preventing obstructions

A highway/road authority has responsibilities on the approaches to a level crossing. These responsibilities have been detailed in level crossing orders since the Road Safety Act 2006 came into force.

Consequently, as National Highways is a highway authority, the section 41 Highways Act 1980 statutory duty to maintain the highway does not apply to level crossings and applies only to the highway approaches to the level crossings. In compliance with this statutory duty, we undertake regular safety inspections of the approaches which we previously shared copies of with you.
As you pointed out, Cambrian Heritage Railways Limited is responsible for the crossing, and therefore the “crossing operator” for this level crossing. The Cambrian Railways Order 2017 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/370/contents) transferred the rights and obligations in respect of this railway to them.
Article 3(b)(ii) states:
“The undertaker is, to the exclusion of Network Rail, subject to all obligations, statutory or otherwise, relating to the railways or any part of them (in so far as those provisions continue in force and are capable of taking effect), with Network Rail released from all such obligations”.
It is currently understood that Cambrian Heritage Railways Limited is the “undertaker”. Therefore, as the crossing operator, Cambrian Heritage Railways Limited is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and renewal of the level crossings.
Although National Highways has no legal responsibility for level crossings, the safety of our road users is our number one priority. If we felt that a level crossing posed an immediate danger to our road users then we would take steps to mitigate this, such as installing road closures or traffic management as necessary, and removing any equipment and/or taking other steps as appropriate.

Once we have carried out an immediate response to keep road users safe, the crossing operator would be given access to the site to carry out work as necessary.

In your correspondence you said you don’t believe that the Local Authority or rail operator have the powers to work on the A5 or A483. This is not the case. Local Authorities regularly work on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) where necessary, and as a statutory undertaker, the crossing operator has powers they can use to work on the SRN."

 

[Llanigraham]

I'm getting more and more confused as to what the OP is attempting to "prove" by his queries to various bodies. If (and it is huge IF) they ever get anywhere near reopening this line then the finer details on who and what is required for the level crossing will be decided.

 

[nwales58]

Short version: it is possible for a heritage railway to have statutory responsibility for the road at a level crossing without an identifiable responsible person.

Key bit of the update: if National Highways (in England) or other highway authority sees imminent danger to road users they have sufficient powers to step in (though likely as a road closure rather than carrying out repairs).

Summary: report concerns to the crossing operator. If it becomes unsafe go to the relevant highway authority.

All in all, much more boring than the thread title.

 

[liamf656]

For some time now I have been trying to establish who has maintenance and safety responsibilities for the surface of unused (by trains) level crossings over the A5 and A483 for vehicle use in Shropshire.

Why exactly?

 

[CambrianView]

Why exactly?

A combination of two things:

There is a pedestrian level crossing just outside Oswestry Station on the restored stretch of line that is used regularly by trains. I would argue that this crossing is poorly maintained by the railway operator due to the number of falls on it. I represented a pensioner who's wheeled walking frame got caught between the lines and she fell some years ago. I failed to get anyone to make improvements to the crossing, although the railway operator stated that the crossing meets the requirements of the ORR.

So, if a level crossing can be so poorly maintained for non railway commuters on a restored stretch of line, what standards would need to be met by the railway operator on an unrestored level crossing over an "A" road that the TWAO has said must not be used by the operator, bearing in mind that National Highways state that the operator has responsibility for maintenance?

The second aspect to this is flooding: Over a number of years regular flooding has happened to some houses in Oswestry along Gobowen Road. Residents have become frustrated by a lack of action to prevent flooding reoccurring. The problems stem from various bodies all finger pointing about maintenance responsibilities regarding local culverts; The Environment Agency, Shropshire Council and the railway operator. The water flow through effects all three of these agencies.

Shropshire Council, the Environment Agency and (going back to my level crossing research) National Highways all have larger budgets and a more professional workforce than a charity called Cambrian Heritage Railways.

So, the short answer is "safety".

 

[Llanigraham]

So, the short answer is "safety".

So absolutely nothing to do with the re-opening of the line!

I do think you need to get your priorities straight; which is more important:
1/ Re-opening the line?
2/ The condition of one pedestrian level crossing?

At present many of us seem to be confused by this quandry.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I would argue that this crossing is poorly maintained by the railway operator due to the number of falls on it. I represented a pensioner who's wheeled walking frame got caught between the lines and she fell some years ago.

Out of curiosity, how many falls and injuries have there been on this crossing ?

I don’t know the state of the crossing but there has to be gaps between any boards and the rails to allow the wheel flanges to pass over the crossing. It doesn’t have to be a huge gap but certainly big enough to get wheels on a walking frame stuck in.

 

[CambrianView]

Out of curiosity, how many falls and injuries have there been on this crossing ?

I don’t know the state of the crossing but there has to be gaps between any boards and the rails to allow the wheel flanges to pass over the crossing. It doesn’t have to be a huge gap but certainly big enough to get wheels on a walking frame stuck in.

I honestly don't know. I've seen other press reports complaining about the crossing for people using mobility scooters. I had a conversation with a guy last year who explained that he prefers to take a long detour to avoid the crossing. He explained that he didn't really know what body to complain to and whether anything would be done.

There are two main problems here; although the line here has been restored at this crossing, there isn't much of a regular train service. What there is is the the main access to the station yard from the line, so trains, rolling stock, chunters etc have to use the crossing.

The second problem is the path of the level crossing goes diagonal across the track making the gaps between more problematic for scooters and pushchairs with small wheels.

Please note that the track is standard gauge, so the same as every other level crossing in the country currently maintained by Network Rail, but that is a publicly owned organization.

 

[nwales58]

Implications:

If (unlikely) a heritage railway in future tries to take over a section including a level crossing, including pedestrian-only, it should be opposed due to these risks?

The Oswestry Sainsburys crossing problem established above could be solved by the Network Rail framework: there is evidence of a risk to crossing users so close it because there is an alternative about 500m away.

Alternatively Cambrian Heritage Railways needs a volunteer gang to raise a bit of money and do the work, how about getting involved?

 

[CambrianView]

Implications:

If (unlikely) a heritage railway in future tries to take over a section including a level crossing, including pedestrian-only, it should be opposed due to these risks?

The Oswestry Sainsburys crossing problem established above could be solved by the Network Rail framework: there is evidence of a risk to crossing users so close it because there is an alternative about 500m away.

Alternatively Cambrian Heritage Railways needs a volunteer gang to raise a bit of money and do the work, how about getting involved?

The Transport & Works Act Order of 2017 transferred responsibility for all assets along the entire stretch of the Oswestry branch line to Cambrian Heritage Railways Ltd, that includes all bridges and all level crossings, including the A5. That means, according to National Highways, Cambrian Heritage Railways (a charity with no workforce) has safety and maintenance responsibilities for the level crossing over the A5 (and at Coney Green by Sainsburys).

In their most recent correspondence National Highways made it clear that they only do inspections of roads up to level crossings, not the crossings themselves, the majority of which are handled by Network Rail. The most that National Highways can do if a problem occurred on the A5 crossing is divert the traffic so that Cambrian Heritage Railways (a charity with no workforce) could make the repairs.

 

[Llanigraham]

If I've got the right., the only crossiing that @cambrian View is concerned about is the foot crossing named Coney Green, just south of the station, where apparently some "incidents" have occured. All the level crossings over the A5/A483 are immaterial, and I note that there are two other crossings at Thomas Saville Way or the one a couple of hundreds yards north of there which don't seem to be mentioned very much.

I thought that thread was about the potential of reopening the line from Oswestry to Gobowen but it seems to have diverted to the state of one crossing. Does @cambrian View actually want the line to reopen, because I'm not sure? As far as I can see if this crossing is so bad then the simplist course of action would be to close it and the RoW it is covered by, and provide a diversion using the Thomas Saville Way crossing instead.

And funnily enough the fact that this crossing is not straight is probably safer for small wheeled vehicles as only one wheel can be trapped, whereas on a straight crossing two wheels can be trapped at the same time.

 

[CambrianView]

With the local county council elections just around the corner I've been making representations to candidates. Here's an example of one I wrote some weeks ago, obviously I will not disclose the name of the candidate or the party:

"Many thanks for your reply. There is no need to apologize for the speed of your response. I fully understand your position and would advise you not to go too far down this rabbit hole as I suspect that it would seriously go against the rose-tinted view that your peers have of getting the Oswestry railway connected to the mainline. I suspect it would be political suicide to raise doubts about it, especially as so much public money has already been poured into this project.

Further, I am not seeking a dialogue about this subject beyond what you have obviously already seen of my posts elsewhere and this email (much appreciation for your time), unless you want me to send anything further.

As of 2025 it appears that the restoration of the railway connection to Gobowen is wholly reliant on the prospect that long term central government funding to dual the A5 will include the cost of building a tunnel for the service. Meanwhile, I suspect that CHR will try and press forward with reconnecting Gobowen to Park Hall Halt, irrespective of service viability – and further local authority subsidies.

That being said, I'll make my position clearer:

I am no expert on restoring railways, but I was one of the objectors to the transfer of powers to operate a railway to CHR in 2017, mostly because I felt their ambition to restore the line to Gobowen was unrealistic, expensive and unjustifiable (in terms of the authority having to financially protect a small railway enthusiasts’ charity over, say, essential services etc).

Prior to the time the application was made I received evidence that appointments to the board of the charity were blocked, thus reinforcing my opinion that the charity was mismanaged, but there were other factors that concerned me:

The missing documentary evidence allowing CHR to run a paid passenger service (as they did) over the Coney Green pedestrian level crossing prior to 2017 as admitted by the Office of Rail & Road, and the poor condition and lack of maintenance of said crossing.

If you stand on that crossing for a couple of hours and ask anyone crossing it on a mobility scooter to express their experiences of using it you will discover how poorly it is being maintained – and yet CHR insist it meets ORR regulations. Further, from my inquiries so far CHR has sole responsibility for safety and maintenance of the level crossings over the A5 and A483. That means if a rail on one of those level crossings becomes loose and causes an accident, CHR is liable has to fix it. To be clear, Network Rail, the Office of Rail & Road, Highways England and Shropshire Council all deny responsibility for the level crossings on the line.

I’m going to pause here and let you think about that fact…

You asked about my thoughts and ideas: I live in Gobowen and regularly commute to town to work by car, so I know how busy the A5 gets. I fully understand that there is a need for sustainable transport solutions to our over reliance on cars, but I would point to a path/greenway/cycleway as a much better alternative and one that formed part of the reason for purchasing the line in the first place.

The road between Gobowen and Oswestry is very indirect and undulating, basically dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. It does have a poorly (in parts) maintained narrow footpath with bordering overgrowing hedge, and it crosses the main roads 4 times. The former railway would offer a safer more direct route crossing a main road just once. Jobs could be created by having cycle leasing stations, cafes and toilets at either ends of the route and at Park Hall Halt.

Companies such as Center Parcs UK could be invited to donate used cycles to be reconditioned for public use as a community project. Costs could be kept low by having a dust track similar to the Mawddach Trail. Crossing the A5 would remain a problem, but at least there’s an island so some kind of chicane could be constructed similar to the one at the Maesbury junction.

The iron bridge over Whittington Road in Oswestry would have to be refurbished, but it would cost a lot less than the engineering work required to make it safe to carry the weight of a train/tram.

If the project was successful there’s the opportunity of upgrading the quality of the route with tarmac surfacing, proper drainage, ground level lighting – maybe even an underpass/pedestrian bridge.

I understand that Shropshire Council does have the results of an independent report that recommends such a scheme, but it recognizes that the authorities’ deep commitment to restoring a railway service undermines this more realistic and achievable project, which is a shame.

The big selling point of restoring the railway appears to be the creation of new jobs, but no one can point to an authoritative and independent report that suggests this would be the case…unless you know different?"

 

[6Gman]

I've enjoyed this thread, but it has rather meandered across a range of issues!

There seem to have been at least three questions, and I will comment on each.

1. Is reopening the railway between Gobowen and Oswestry viable/realistic/value for money? Personally probably not, probably not, definitely not!
2. Is Cambrian Heritage Railway an appropriate entity to pursue this? Don't know, but the evidence is unconvincing.
3. How can the Coney Green crossing be made safer for users? A complaint should be made to Shropshire Council (as the Highway Authority) asking them to use their powers under the Highways Act 1980 (Sections 130 and 131A) to take action to make the crossing fit "for the exercise of the public right of way". If the Highway Authority is unwilling to act it may be possible for the complainant to use Section 56 of the same Act to require the HA to act. But the HA may instead take the view that its condition is such that it is still fit "for the exercise of the public right of way". Given the state of many roads, footways and footpaths the bar may be set very high, or low, depending on your perspective.

 

[chrisjo]

I noticed yesterday, when I drove south on the A5/A483, that the northern crossing tracks had been cleaned out, suggesting that something had used the track from Gobowen rather recently, or was expected soon?

 

[CambrianView]

I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the deterioration of the unused level crossing over the A5 near the Five Junctions Roundabout just outside Oswestry. I've received correspondence from National Highways and Shropshire Council who have both admitted they make no safety checks on the crossing. Here are some very recent photos:

1. A ground view shot of where the line meets the A5
2. A higher shot showing a bit of the central island
3. A shot of the lights facing south featuring a notice with no useful contact details
4. A close up showing the decay in the tarmac around a rail
5. A front shot of the lights on the central island
6. A back shot of the of the lights on the central island
7. Another back shot of the lights on the central island showing the partly missing and taped up post
8. A detail of the taped, partly missing post on the central island

 

[The Planner]

I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the deterioration of the unused level crossing over the A5 near the Five Junctions Roundabout just outside Oswestry. I've received correspondence from National Highways and Shropshire Council who have both admitted they make no safety checks on the crossing. Here are some very recent photos:

1. A ground view shot of where the line meets the A5
2. A higher shot showing a bit of the central island
3. A shot of the lights facing south featuring a notice with no useful contact details
4. A close up showing the decay in the tarmac around a rail
5. A front shot of the lights on the central island
6. A back shot of the of the lights on the central island
7. Another back shot of the lights on the central island showing the partly missing and taped up post
8. A detail of the taped, partly missing post on the central island

There will be plenty of examples of level crossings like this where a disused line crosses a road.

 

[nwales58]

There will be plenty of examples of level crossings like this where a disused line crosses a road.

Nearby, the A495 crossing with the disused line near Llynclys quarry was appalling when I last went that way. Or have the rails been tarmacced over since?

Is this really worth worrying about? The relevant highways authority will take action when needed, but with ever-tightening budgets nothing is a priority until the problem is acute.

You could instead campaign to increase taxation so we can have the quality of networks we expect.

 

[Llanigraham]

And I ask again, does @CambrianView actually want the line to reopen, or is he just concerned about some disused level crossings?

@nwales58. When I crossed that disused crossing recently the rails were still visible in the road surface, and it's no worse than a lot of roads in Shropshire.

And to be honest, I've seen level crossings on active lines on trunk roads in worse condition that those photos!

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

And I ask again, does @CambrianView actually want the line to reopen, or is he just concerned about some disused level crossings?

@nwales58. When I crossed that disused crossing recently the rails were still visible in the road surface, and it's no worse than a lot of roads in Shropshire.

And to be honest, I've seen level crossings on active lines on trunk roads in worse condition that those photos!

Agreed. The condition of the actual track where it crosses the road looks perfectly fine and, while the crossing is unused, the condition of signage, lights etc is irrelevant. I see nothing there that could cause any danger to vehicles using the road.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given the crossing is not used for Rail traffic, it looks fine to me.

Plenty of unused crossings in much worse condition.

 

[Llandudno]

Given the crossing is not used for Rail traffic, it looks fine to me.

Plenty of unused crossings in much worse condition.

and will never be used for rail traffic again…..!

 

[mdewell]

In April this year, the scaffolding came down (after about 4 years!) and the renovated Oswestry Station building is revealed. A new roof and repaired stonework.

 

[CambrianView]

I have received information from an official channel that legal steps are being taken to have all level crossing assets removed from the stretch of road detailed in post 317 to bring it in line with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Standards.

 

[6Gman]

I have received informational from an official channel that legal steps are being taken to have all level crossing assets removed from the stretch of road detailed in post 317 to bring it in line with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Standards.

Good!

 

[liamf656]

I have received informational from an official channel that legal steps are being taken to have all level crossing assets removed from the stretch of road detailed in post 317 to bring it in line with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Standards.

It's about time, and what I was about to suggest on this thread!!

 

[Llanigraham]

I have received informational from an official channel that legal steps are being taken to have all level crossing assets removed from the stretch of road detailed in post 317 to bring it in line with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Standards.

About time too!
And having driven over both crossings twice today I can report that there are no obvious road probems with either of them. Railwise the only thing I noted was the flangeways were full of grit snd there were trees and vegetation on all sides blocking the tracks, especially at the northern crossing.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have received information from an official channel that legal steps are being taken to have all level crossing assets removed from the stretch of road detailed in post 317 to bring it in line with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Standards.

Excellent, and when confirmed perhaps this thread can be closed.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

In April this year, the scaffolding came down (after about 4 years!) and the renovated Oswestry Station building is revealed. A new roof and repaired stonework.

View attachment 183466

A handsome building.