Plumpton Level Crossing wheel-operated gates to be retained

[HarleyDavidson]

The lack of road signals isn't too terrible at Plumpton, the crossing keeper has a good view each way on the 30mph road, which isn't particularly busy. Obviously a fully road-signalled crossing would be safer, but as has been stated previously NR's main reason for updating the crossing is always going to be money.

Obviously never been there on a race day.

 

[Townsend Hook]

Obviously never been there on a race day.

Indeed I have not

 

[Yabbadabba]

Thanks, that makes more sense! Misinformation as ever, though is there any reliance on off-area cover to keep the job moving?

The next nearest relief would be either the North Downs Area or West Coastway Area (the Arundel Area not including Lancing as that comes under Lewes). The three outer area reliefs, East Coastway, West Coastway and North Downs that were left after the Eastbourne Area re signalling are all supposed to be self contained with no cross cover, whether that happens in pratice with the staff shortages I couldn't say.

 

[James H]

Letter to Plumpton residents from Network Rail

Dear Resident

Plumpton Level Crossing

We’re very sorry for the disruption you are experiencing as a result of the closure of Plumpton level crossing.

We recognise that the level crossing in Plumpton is hugely important to local residents but sadly, despite its heritage the Victorian level crossing presents an unacceptable safety risk to users which had to be addressed.

Because of this we developed proposals for a £2 million upgraded level crossing which would meets today’s safety standards as well as providing a segregated accessible route for pedestrians. Our proposed plans included removing the Victorian barrier gates and donating these to the East Kent Railway Trust.

We started planning these works several years ago and the proposed replacement was due to take place between 25 September and 12 October this year.

Sadly our plans did not receive listed buildings consent on 30 September. On 25 September we started preparatory works to non-listed structures to prepare for a new level crossing, because we had assumed, based on the fact that our listed buildings consent application had been recommended for approval by Lewes District Council officers, that permission was likely to be granted. We should not have made this assumption and we are sorry for this.

As such we are now in the unfortunate position that we cannot currently proceed with the new level crossing whilst we do not have the listed buildings consent required to remove the existing gates. The signalling upgrade works we have already carried out on site mean we are unable to reinstate the crossing into its previous state and reopen the road immediately. We must also carry out a full safety risk assessment, which may identify that additional mitigation works must be completed before we can safely reopen the road. We are currently in the process of doing this....

 

[Henbury Loop]

3 months closure, sucks to live there!

 

[ian959]

But at least they have their nice heritage level crossing... for now.

 

[marks87]

But at least they have their nice heritage level crossing... for now.

Seeing as how no traffic is allowed over it, doesn't that just make it a "nice heritage level"?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

3 months closure, sucks to live there!

I'd put 2/- on it not re-opening after 3 months. The initial 3 month period is probably the opening gambit in an appeal against the planning permission which will ultimately see NR prove that the crossing can't work safely with the new signalling system and will have to be replaced or closed.

 

[PhilipW]

Instead of spending large amounts of money endlessly fiddling about, it sounds to me like NR should be planning a bridge.

 

[sarahj]

Its not just road users being affected. The only way for passengers from one side to the other is by the bridge. So anyone with issues, pushchairs etc are finding it very difficult. Folks are being told to circulate via Lewes and the Heath, but with one train an hour.....

 

[Bald Rick]

Instead of spending large amounts of money endlessly fiddling about, it sounds to me like NR should be planning a bridge.

You get an awful lot of fiddling about for the £15-20m a bridge would cost.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Instead of spending large amounts of money endlessly fiddling about, it sounds to me like NR should be planning a bridge.

That isn't viable until the council approves permission to remove the listed structures.

 

[infobleep]

Its not just road users being affected. The only way for passengers from one side to the other is by the bridge. So anyone with issues, pushchairs etc are finding it very difficult. Folks are being told to circulate via Lewes and the Heath, but with one train an hour.....

Would they need to buy an extra ticket to circulate?

I've been through the cross many times unaware it was still wheel operated.

 

[sarahj]

Would they need to buy an extra ticket to circulate?

I've been through the cross many times unaware it was still wheel operated.

No, no they would not.

I can see it all from both sides. I know folks who live in Plumpton and they view the crossing as part of the village. This is an area that Trumptonshire was based on, (just down the road is Chailey/Chigley) and time does NOT march on.

However from a railway POV, its an old system, upgrades to the whole signaling system in Sussex are taking place, and excluding Lewes, the only box around. Folks want their railway to be safe, efficient and 'cheap', and leaving in some tech from the 1800's is not part of that plan. This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-hQ6-biWoo is the not the real world anymore.

 

[infobleep]

So is the box at Lewes due to go soon to?

 

[Yabbadabba]

So is the box at Lewes due to go soon to?

The signalling at Lewes and on the Seaford Branch is due to transfer to TBROC in 2018, that plan is still going ahead and has not as of yet been effected by any budget cuts or reductions.

 

[infobleep]

The signalling at Lewes and on the Seaford Branch is due to transfer to TBROC in 2018, that plan is still going ahead and has not as of yet been effected by any budget cuts or reductions.

I've not read the letter itself yet as in my mobile the link keeps opening up an incorrect app. Therefore what I'm about to say might not be relevant.

Could they not deal with Plumpton crossing closure when they deal with Lewes and Seaford and try and resolve the disagreement between now and then, so the crossing doesn't remain closed.

 

[Yabbadabba]

I've not read the letter itself yet as in my mobile the link keeps opening up an incorrect app. Therefore what I'm about to say might not be relevant.

Could they not deal with Plumpton crossing closure when they deal with Lewes and Seaford and try and resolve the disagreement between now and then, so the crossing doesn't remain closed.

They are two completely different schemes, one will be the complete Re-signalling of the Lewes, Newhaven Town & Newhaven Harbour signalbox areas and relocated to the existing Sussex East Coastway workstation in TBROC to be completed in 2018.

The other is the replacing of a manual gated crossing keeper to a MCB-OD to the control of TBASC panel 5, to be resolved as soon as possible either way, I don't think hanging around until 2018 would be a good idea.

But whatever happens the fringe point between TBASC and TBROC will as it is now with Lewes signalbox just north of Cooksbridge.

 

[infobleep]

They are two completely different schemes, one will be the complete Re-signalling of the Lewes, Newhaven Town & Newhaven Harbour signalbox areas and relocated to the existing Sussex East Coastway workstation in TBROC to be completed in 2018.

The other is the replacing of a manual gated crossing keeper to a MCB-OD to the control of TBASC panel 5, to be resolved as soon as possible either way, I don't think hanging around until 2018 would be a good idea.

But whatever happens the fringe point between TBASC and TBROC will as it is now with Lewes signalbox just north of Cooksbridge.

They have been designed as separate schemes but could they not have been designed originally so that Plumpton was part of the Lewes scheme.

I'm talking in hindsight here with no professional knowledge of what can or can't be done so my suggestions may be almost impossible from a day to day running of the line prospective.

 

[Yabbadabba]

They have been designed as separate schemes but could they not have been designed originally so that Plumpton was part of the Lewes scheme.

I'm talking in hindsight here with no professional knowledge of what can or can't be done so my suggestions may be almost impossible from a day to day running of the line prospective.

There is no common fringe point between the two projects, one is a complete re signalling going to box "B" and the other is a crossing modernisation with a few signalling modifications going to box "A" both would of been tendered out separately. Now if they were going to take the line to Keymer Junction from TBASC panel 5 and recontrol it to TBROC Sussex East Sussex workstation, now that would make it one scheme, but that would add costs to a scheme that would be necessary as it stands at the moment. As it is TBASC keeps being moved into the too difficult and expensive category for now, so we wait for what is in store for the BML to see what happens with the Lewes Branch.

 

[NSEFAN]

They have been designed as separate schemes but could they not have been designed originally so that Plumpton was part of the Lewes scheme.

Plumpton has been only a crossing box for years. It is curious that the barriers remained upon resignalling to Three Bridges in 1985, presumably some kind of BR economy measure. In any case, I can see why it would be treated differently to Lewes and Newhaven boxes as full resignalling is a bit more involved than replacing a single crossing.

 

[infobleep]

Plumpton has been only a crossing box for years. It is curious that the barriers remained upon resignalling to Three Bridges in 1985, presumably some kind of BR economy measure. In any case, I can see why it would be treated differently to Lewes and Newhaven boxes as full resignalling is a bit more involved than replacing a single crossing.

So back then it was cheaper to employ someone can change the technology? Of course weren't staff costs lower under BR. Not suggesting they should be lower now mind you.

 

[Yabbadabba]

So back then it was cheaper to employ someone can change the technology? Of course weren't staff costs lower under BR. Not suggesting they should be lower now mind you.

Not sure where your going there with this one. Plumpton was going to be replaced with AHBs under the original BML (TBASC) re signalling scheme 30 odd years ago. But the story goes that the road didn't meet the requirements for the AHBs to be installed. So the temporary fudge was to keep the crossing keepers until now, where by technology has caught up and you can now have automatic full barriers interlocked with the signalling. Now whether that's the right solution or not is not my argument to fight.

 

[MarkyT]

Plumpton was going to be replaced with AHBs under the original BML (TBASC) re signalling scheme 30 odd years ago. But the story goes that the road didn't meet the requirements for the AHBs to be installed. So the temporary fudge was to keep the crossing keepers until now, where by technology has caught up and you can now have automatic full barriers interlocked with the signalling. Now whether that's the right solution or not is not my argument to fight.

If the gates had been replaced by locally controlled full barriers years ago after the AHB project failed at a time when there may have been less local concern over the heritage value of the gates themselves, then converting those barriers later to remote control or OD automatic would have been a fairly trivial exercise. Today there would only have been the concern of what to do with the redundant old signalbox building.

 

[Yabbadabba]

If the gates had been replaced by locally controlled full barriers years ago after the AHB project failed at a time when there may have been less local concern over the heritage value of the gates themselves, then converting those barriers later to remote control or OD automatic would have been a fairly trivial exercise. Today there would only have been the concern of what to do with the redundant old signalbox building.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool and I bet if the project engineers 30 old years ago knew what problems lay in store now, they might of just changed their plans, but we are where we are and it's a big stinking pile of it. ??????

Just passed over the said crossing on the train, what a sad sight.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Has it now reached the point where either NR are allowed to replace the barriers or the crossing gets permanently closed?

 

[carriageline]

There is no common fringe point between the two projects, one is a complete re signalling going to box "B" and the other is a crossing modernisation with a few signalling modifications going to box "A" both would of been tendered out separately. Now if they were going to take the line to Keymer Junction from TBASC panel 5 and recontrol it to TBROC Sussex East Sussex workstation, now that would make it one scheme, but that would add costs to a scheme that would be necessary as it stands at the moment. As it is TBASC keeps being moved into the too difficult and expensive category for now, so we wait for what is in store for the BML to see what happens with the Lewes Branch.

We've been told it's 'definetly' going ahead, and 'definitely' going on the East Sussex workstation with, I presume, full ARS. This was a week or 2 ago.

 

[Yabbadabba]

We've been told it's 'definetly' going ahead, and 'definitely' going on the East Sussex workstation with, I presume, full ARS. This was a week or 2 ago.

I was told its was at GRIP stage three and not far off GRIP stage four, so unless someone pulls the plug at the 11th hour then it's a dead certain, although talking to a matual friend this morning his says it may only be just Lewes.

 

[Tio Terry]

Has it now reached the point where either NR are allowed to replace the barriers or the crossing gets permanently closed?

The condition of the mechanical elements of the gates interlocking is such that it is unsafe to rely upon it. The gates either have to be replaced with modern technology, be kept locked across the road - so closing the road - or closed across the railway - so closing the railway.

The only possible other option is to work the gates by hand and manually lock the gates with chains and padlocks which would be time consuming and extremely costly.

 

[infobleep]

Not sure where your going there with this one. Plumpton was going to be replaced with AHBs under the original BML (TBASC) re signalling scheme 30 odd years ago. But the story goes that the road didn't meet the requirements for the AHBs to be installed. So the temporary fudge was to keep the crossing keepers until now, where by technology has caught up and you can now have automatic full barriers interlocked with the signalling. Now whether that's the right solution or not is not my argument to fight.

OK. That's interesting. That explains it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The condition of the mechanical elements of the gates interlocking is such that it is unsafe to rely upon it. The gates either have to be replaced with modern technology, be kept locked across the road - so closing the road - or closed across the railway - so closing the railway.

The only possible other option is to work the gates by hand and manually lock the gates with chains and padlocks which would be time consuming and extremely costly.

Out of interest were the gates safe before they were closed or should they have been closed sooner but because it takes time to do these things, they had to continue using them?

What would the residents say if an accident occurred? Oh you should have replaced those unsafe gates?