Plumpton Level Crossing wheel-operated gates to be retained

[Bald Rick]

I'm quite enjoying this display of people power. Usually everyone bends over and let's their heritage be destroyed without even blinking.

But, and this is the important bit, the heritage isn't being destroyed. it was being (and ultimately will be) carefully removed to a place that it is much better suited to, i.e. a heritage railway. And the level crossing upgraded to something safer, more effective, more efficient and more in keeping with the modern railway.

All Lewes DC councillors have done is annoy a number of people who use the crossing, and delay the original proposal, to the benefit of no one.

 

[BRblue]

But, and this is the important bit, the heritage isn't being destroyed. it was being (and ultimately will be) carefully removed to a place that it is much better suited to, i.e. a heritage railway. And the level crossing upgraded to something safer, more effective, more efficient and more in keeping with the modern railway.

All Lewes DC councillors have done is annoy a number of people who use the crossing, and delay the original proposal, to the benefit of no one.

And lets not forget how much money has been wasted because of those same councillors.

 

[Chrisgr31]

But, and this is the important bit, the heritage isn't being destroyed. it was being (and ultimately will be) carefully removed to a place that it is much better suited to, i.e. a heritage railway. And the level crossing upgraded to something safer, more effective, more efficient and more in keeping with the modern railway.

All Lewes DC councillors have done is annoy a number of people who use the crossing, and delay the original proposal, to the benefit of no one.

But at the same time had it been Tesco that had done this there would have been an outcry. The reality is that Network Rail have fouled up by starting works before they got the appropriate consents and therefore in my view are getting their just deserts.

No doubt that Network Rail will ultimately be successful but hopefully they will have learnt a lesson not to start work until they have the consents.

 

[Bald Rick]

No doubt that Network Rail will ultimately be successful but hopefully they will have learnt a lesson not to start work until they have the consents.

Personally, I think is reasonable to start work that doesn't need the consent, as a precursor to work that does need consent, when you have a reasonable indication that the consents will be granted. As happened in this case.

Pretty much every major railway project I can think of has been started before full planning consent has been granted. Things take long enough to do in this country as it is.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The authority has called for Network Rail to reapply for listed building consent as they bid to replace the Victorian gates at Plumpton station with a modern design.

"We have read all 290 specific comments included and were reassured that so many of these believe the priority must be to reopen the road as quickly as possible.

"We are working closely with the local authorities to resolve this situation as quickly and as safely as possible and will be submitting a new planning application soon."

(From that news article - http://m.theargus.co.uk/news/138860...ail_from_working_on_Victorian_level_crossing/)

My gut feeling is that it'll be late January/early February at the very earliest before the crossing re-opens, as NR will now be busy planning and organizing the Xmas/New Years engineering works and the time that the planning process takes (drawing up new plans, consultations, and whatever else)

 

[Philip Phlopp]

(From that news article - http://m.theargus.co.uk/news/138860...ail_from_working_on_Victorian_level_crossing/)

My gut feeling is that it'll be late January/early February at the very earliest before the crossing re-opens, as NR will now be busy planning and organizing the Xmas/New Years engineering works and the time that the planning process takes (drawing up new plans, consultations, and whatever else)

What year ?

The works for December 2015 and January 2016 were published some months ago, and some were planned in detail at least a year earlier (as the EAS runs to early December each year, complicated closures over Xmas needing preparatory possessions need very long lead times to fit into the previous year's EAS, ideally).

Network Rail are finishing the plans for December 2016 to January 2017 at the moment, but the vast majority of that work is already planned and work is underway to make it happen.

The attention now will be planning the December 2016 to December 2017 period and planning what will be happening over Christmas 2017 so that preparatory works make it into the 2016/17 EAS.

I would put money on the crossing still being closed this time next year, whilst a lengthy appeal process drags on.

 

[Skutter]

A longer delay in reopening might help in the long run - if the new sliding gate design they are designing for Redcar gets approval for general use. Presumably these gates will be compatible with OD operation, and can have any style of cosmetic front applied to the mechanical structure. Network Rail would then have modern operation, and the village doesn't have lifting barriers. I think there are other listed crossings on Network Rail?

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/novel-level-crossing-to-be-installed-at-west-dyke-road

 

[infobleep]

A longer delay in reopening might help in the long run - if the new sliding gate design they are designing for Redcar gets approval for general use. Presumably these gates will be compatible with OD operation, and can have any style of cosmetic front applied to the mechanical structure. Network Rail would then have modern operation, and the village doesn't have lifting barriers. I think there are other listed crossings on Network Rail?

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/novel-level-crossing-to-be-installed-at-west-dyke-road

If this is soon to exist, could they not have waited until this was approved and then do the work. Perhaps there was something else they could have worked on in between.

 

[Rooky]

Grrrrrrrr...... So many questions to ask. I live right next door to the crossing so have seen everything. NR have not exactly covered themeselves in glory on this one. Can't work out whether they are being very clever, devious or naive?

 

[Townsend Hook]

NR have not exactly covered themselves in glory on this one.

To be totally fair, neither have Lewes District Council.

 

[Rooky]

I can only say it as I see it.
As an immediate neighbour I have not been approached once by NR with regard the scheme.
I currently have 1 and sometimes 2 big black 4x4s courtesy of NR Security parked at the end of my drive. We sometimes have to ask them to move in order to enter or leave my property.
NR have failed to answer my questions as to why they couldn't operate the crossing 'by hand' in order to reopen the road pending appeal - initially they said it was because vital equipment had been removed. Now they are saying it is because the signalling has changed. There has also been a suggestion (unsubstantiated) that NR persuaded the Trade Unions to refuse to operate the crossing. I know for a fact, the signalling wasn't switched over until Sunday 11th October, several days after the listed building consent was refused.
It may be covered elswhere in this thread but the Risk Assessment presented to the Planning Committee was entirely at odds with the actuality and it also conflicted with the assessment undertaken by NR using their All Level crossing Risk Model and as published on their website.
Happy to hear any alternative views or proper answers as to why things are as they are?

 

[marks87]

...initially they said it was because vital equipment had been removed. Now they are saying it is because the signalling has changed.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they can (and probably do) mean the same thing.

 

[Rooky]

There were several days between the two statements. The suspicion locally is that Network Rail played for time until they switched over to the new signalling so that their argument became valid.
Tell me, what happens 'day to day' if a level crossing fails. Does everything come to a stand or are people despatched to operate it manually and allow trains to pass when everything is secure?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hot off the press! Network Rail have asked ASLEF if their drivers are prepared to drive over the crossing if it is operated by hand. (Letter from Local MP confirms this). However likely to take a couple of months to reach agreement. Surely a delaying tactic?

 

[Tomnick]

If a wheel-worked crossing fails (mechanically), there's maybe a chance that it could be worked by hand (depending on what's failed) just to keep the job moving - almost certainly with delays to trains as the protecting signals probably won't be able to be cleared. I'm sure that you'll appreciate the distinction between working a crossing by hand for a few hours following a failure and doing so routinely for weeks or months - and the risk to the crossing keeper whilst doing so (Plumpton isn't a million miles away from the hand-worked gates in Kent where a signalman was seriously injured recently) and to the safety of the line through the increased potential for an error to be made and not stopped by the interlocking. I'm not surprised that the unions aren't keen!

 

[Rooky]

I am merely a neighbour not a Railway person so can't help thinking that Network Rail are pulling as many excuses out of the bag as possible and confusing us with reasons why something can't be done. It suits Network Rail not to reopen the crossing as the desire of locals to reopen the road will eventually outweigh the resistance to barriers.

 

[Tio Terry]

I am merely a neighbour not a Railway person so can't help thinking that Network Rail are pulling as many excuses out of the bag as possible and confusing us with reasons why something can't be done. It suits Network Rail not to reopen the crossing as the desire of locals to reopen the road will eventually outweigh the resistance to barriers.

I know it can seem that way but the truth is that the crossing was taken out of service pending replacement. When, following objection, attempts were made to put it back in to service the testing proved that the mechanical interlocking of the gates could be fairly easily compromised. Somebody leaning on a gate in the closed to road position could cause it to open. It is all down to mechanical wear. That being the case the crossing could not be placed back in to service. Nobody would want an unsafe crossing being allowed in service. Yes, NR should have identified this problem earlier, I accept that, but, having found it they could not possible have allowed it's continued use knowing it was sub-standard.

 

[Townsend Hook]

Yes, NR should have identified this problem earlier, I accept that, but, having found it they could not possible have allowed it's continued use knowing it was sub-standard.

Precisely, Network Rail simply cannot open a crossing that has a mechanism known to be worn to the point of being unsafe. Doing so would open them up to all kind of liability issues, not to mention the uproar that would be generated by the press, local politicians and the unions. As for hand-signalling trains over the crossing as a regular arrangement, I imagine the RMT wouldn't be too keen on their members carrying out such a duty, and there is the added issue of the vast financial penalties NR would be liable to pay to Southern for the inevitable delays to their services. The best outcome all round at this stage has to be installation of barriers to replace the gates (which are not in themselves listed at all). Otherwise Network Rail cannot legitimately allow the crossing to be opened.

 

[Bald Rick]

Precisely, Network Rail simply cannot open a crossing that has a mechanism known to be worn to the point of being unsafe. Doing so would open them up to all kind of liability issues, not to mention the uproar that would be generated by the press, local politicians and the unions. As for hand-signalling trains over the crossing as a regular arrangement, I imagine the RMT wouldn't be too keen on their members carrying out such a duty, and there is the added issue of the vast financial penalties NR would be liable to pay to Southern for the inevitable delays to their services. The best outcome all round at this stage has to be installation of barriers to replace the gates (which are not in themselves listed at all). Otherwise Network Rail cannot legitimately allow the crossing to be opened.

Put more simply, who on this forum would be willing to open (or instruct the opening) of a defective crossing to road traffic in the certain knowledge that if there was an incident on the crossing that led to a fatality, it was a one way ticket to a manslaughter conviction and a stretch of chokey?

 

[Henbury Loop]

Aforementioned letter attached

 

[Rooky]

There are always two sides to a story. Please bear with me. Network Rail accepted they needed Listed Building consent - that is why they applied for it. They gambled on getting a decision in their favour. The risk assessment was flawed and therefore failed to prove that barriers were in the public interest (which was what was required to obtain consent). When asked to reopen the road immediately after the planning decision, Network Rail said it couldn't be done. We locals are not asking for the crossing to reopen as it was but for Network Rail to implement some kind of manual operation (hand-signalling is referred to above). Presumably RMT are the Network Rail employees union? Why then have Network Rail asked ASLEF instead? There is so much misinformation coming from supposedly senior sources. The Area Director says the crossing is unacceptably safe and implies it has been for some time - why then wasn't it closed sooner? Surely Network Rail didn't allow Southern to run trains over a crossing that was unsafe did they? Rant over!

 

[Rooky]

Me again - it has just occurred to me that a couple of years ago the crossing was opened by hand for at least a week while repairs were carried out. In order to allow trains through, two men closed the gates to road traffic and secured them shut with a chain looped around the gates where they met in the middle. 4 trains per hour max.

 

[Bald Rick]

Aforementioned letter attached

View attachment 24258

It was "a clear will of the majority" of residents of Lewes that Ms Caulfield wouldn't be their MP.

If transport improvement schemes were decided by votes by locals, we'd still be using the A5 to get to Birmingham.

 

[HowardGWR]

If the gates aren't listed (or needed to be listed?) then why would NR apply for LBP for replacing them? Don't get it.

 

[Rooky]

Network Rail fully accepted that listed consent was required - that has never been in dispute. The big issue was that once the decision was made, Network Rail continued to carry out work regardless. It took a court order to stop them. Network Rail then took legal advice and decided not to challenge the court order which suggests they realised they were wrong.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If the gates aren't listed (or needed to be listed?) then why would NR apply for LBP for replacing them? Don't get it.

They need permission to change the environment in the immediate vicinity of the signal box, which is listed.

 

[Townsend Hook]

Presumably RMT are the Network Rail employees union? Why then have Network Rail asked ASLEF instead?!

RMT (the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union) are the biggest union representing NR's maintenance and operating staff, who would be the ones carrying out the handsignalling duties. ASLEF (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen) represent the majority of the drivers, who work for Southern and not Network Rail. In all honesty I can't see either being happy with their members participating in any operation where handsignalling becomes the regular mode of operation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Network Rail fully accepted that listed consent was required - that has never been in dispute. The big issue was that once the decision was made, Network Rail continued to carry out work regardless. It took a court order to stop them. Network Rail then took legal advice and decided not to challenge the court order which suggests they realised they were wrong.

They carried out preliminary work in anticipation of permission being granted, as the LDC planning officers had indicated was likely. As the situation developed NR opted to go ahead with installation of the new barriers because it is the only way the crossing can realistically be opened. LDC took exception to this and got an injunction, and thus the road looks likely to remain closed for the foreseeable future.

 

[Llanigraham]

I can only say it as I see it.
As an immediate neighbour I have not been approached once by NR with regard the scheme. (1)
I currently have 1 and sometimes 2 big black 4x4s courtesy of NR Security parked at the end of my drive. We sometimes have to ask them to move in order to enter or leave my property. (2)
NR have failed to answer my questions as to why they couldn't operate the crossing 'by hand' in order to reopen the road pending appeal - initially they said it was because vital equipment had been removed. Now they are saying it is because the signalling has changed. (3) There has also been a suggestion (unsubstantiated) that NR persuaded the Trade Unions to refuse to operate the crossing. (4) I know for a fact, the signalling wasn't switched over until Sunday 11th October, several days after the listed building consent was refused. (5)
It may be covered elswhere in this thread but the Risk Assessment presented to the Planning Committee was entirely at odds with the actuality and it also conflicted with the assessment undertaken by NR using their All Level crossing Risk Model and as published on their website. (6)
Happy to hear any alternative views or proper answers as to why things are as they are?

(1) NR are not actually required to contact you, however a Closure Order is required to be posted at the place of the closure by your COUNCIL, so perhaps you need to ask them why they didn't contact you.
(2) They will be sub-contractors from NR, so I suggest you complain to the people who organised the recent public meeting in Plumpton, which of course you did go to, didn't you?
(3) Correct, and if you had gone to the Public Meeting this would have been explained to you. See also the recent Press Releases linked to earlier here.
(4) Total rubbish!
(5) Really? And do you work as an S & T Engineer or a signaller?
(6) Each and every level crossing has it's own Risk Assessment. The one published is a guideline. I presume you have commented on your perceived difference to the Planning Officer?

What is your opinion of your local Council spending your money on fatuous and wasteful legal expenditure?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There were several days between the two statements. The suspicion locally is that Network Rail played for time until they switched over to the new signalling so that their argument became valid.
Tell me, what happens 'day to day' if a level crossing fails. Does everything come to a stand or are people despatched to operate it manually and allow trains to pass when everything is secure? (1)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hot off the press! Network Rail have asked ASLEF if their drivers are prepared to drive over the crossing if it is operated by hand. (Letter from Local MP confirms this). However likely to take a couple of months to reach agreement. Surely a delaying tactic? (2)

(1) If my barrier (not gate) level crossing fails it stays down until the engineers can come and repair it. People have to find another route.
(2) Yes, right and pigs might fly!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Aforementioned letter attached

View attachment 24258

And the answer to that last paragraph is quite simple; burn the gates and replace then with proper modern barriers.
End of problem!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are always two sides to a story. Please bear with me. Network Rail accepted they needed Listed Building consent - that is why they applied for it. They gambled on getting a decision in their favour. The risk assessment was flawed and therefore failed to prove that barriers were in the public interest (which was what was required to obtain consent). When asked to reopen the road immediately after the planning decision, Network Rail said it couldn't be done. We locals are not asking for the crossing to reopen as it was but for Network Rail to implement some kind of manual operation (hand-signalling is referred to above). Presumably RMT are the Network Rail employees union? Why then have Network Rail asked ASLEF instead? There is so much misinformation coming from supposedly senior sources. The Area Director says the crossing is unacceptably safe and implies it has been for some time - why then wasn't it closed sooner? Surely Network Rail didn't allow Southern to run trains over a crossing that was unsafe did they? Rant over!

ASLEF are one of the train drivers unions.
RMT is the main Union for the signallers.

And as a signaller I would not be willing to work that crossing in the condition it now is. It is NOT safe!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Network Rail fully accepted that listed consent was required - that has never been in dispute. The big issue was that once the decision was made, Network Rail continued to carry out work regardless. It took a court order to stop them. Network Rail then took legal advice and decided not to challenge the court order which suggests they realised they were wrong.

Err?
The injunction to stop the work has been issued by your local Council, at YOUR expense, and not by NR.
Get your facts straight!!

 

[BRblue]

(1) NR are not actually required to contact you, however a Closure Order is required to be posted at the place of the closure by your COUNCIL, so perhaps you need to ask them why they didn't contact you.
(2) They will be sub-contractors from NR, so I suggest you complain to the people who organised the recent public meeting in Plumpton, which of course you did go to, didn't you?
(3) Correct, and if you had gone to the Public Meeting this would have been explained to you. See also the recent Press Releases linked to earlier here.
(4) Total rubbish!
(5) Really? And do you work as an S & T Engineer or a signaller?
(6) Each and every level crossing has it's own Risk Assessment. The one published is a guideline. I presume you have commented on your perceived difference to the Planning Officer?

What is your opinion of your local Council spending your money on fatuous and wasteful legal expenditure?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


(1) If my barrier (not gate) level crossing fails it stays down until the engineers can come and repair it. People have to find another route.
(2) Yes, right and pigs might fly!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


And the answer to that last paragraph is quite simple; burn the gates and replace then with proper modern barriers.
End of problem!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


ASLEF are one of the train drivers unions.
RMT is the main Union for the signallers.

And as a signaller I would not be willing to work that crossing in the condition it now is. It is NOT safe!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Err?
The injunction to stop the work has been issued by your local Council, at YOUR expense, and not by NR.
Get your facts straight!!

Hmmmm... He did get that particular fact straight I think you may of misread that last point. Apart from that I agree with everything you have said.

 

[Rooky]

Llanigraham - apologies. I guess a little knowledge (or in my case no knowledge) is a dangerous thing.
I really thought the security team were Network Rail. The 4x4s have Network Rail written on the side?
Re the new signalling, I assumed (obviously wrongly) that the team of people (I think they said they were signal testers?) from Atkins on Sunday 11th were getting the new signalling ready for operation. Sometime between Sunday Morning and Monday morning bags were removed from new signals? Does that make sense?
As for the risk assessment - Network Rail used a different assessment to their All Level Crossing Risk Model Assessment in their submission to the planners. This was queried, not in the least because of the significant differences.

 

[HowardGWR]

Thanks to Philip Phlopp, again. Somebody in EH was a bit too 'flowery' when they drew up the listing description, it would appear. I've been involved in environmental campaigning for a long time, although no longer, currently. I think, and this applies to the AONB issues too, that the time to start a campaign is not when the work to change a situation has started, or is about to start, but when something like an initial proposal has emerged. In all cases currently discussed on this forum, folk are either campaigning against permitted development, or have failed to place an objection that relies on a planning policy at an earlier stage in the planning process. Getting in early is a vital planning tactic.