Swanage Railway General Discussion

Just those who are on the unelected Wareham Town Trust...they think they speak for the whole of wareham...

 

There has got to be a better solution, if Network rail weren't so bloody minded about closing every single level crossing then we might actually get somewhere.
There sensible solutions to keeping the foot crossing open, but because network rail have this policy they are driving home their desire to shut the crossing when adequate, pedestrian level crossing management methods are available and could be used.

Its not Wareham folk being annoying about it, its the place where these people live and if they want to fight for a level crossing to be retained then they can bloody well do so. I for one support its retention and hope that the weight of public feeling will make sure a lasting solution is found that keeps every one happy.

I personally think that a major redesign of the road layout needs to be undertaken to allow an underpass to be built.

 

I suppose one factor is the cost and hassle of the ongoing maintenance that lifts would require. If one lift breaks down, then the crossing is cut off to disabled people and pushchairs.

On the other hand, a ramped bridge is a build and forget solution.

 

Sounds to me like it is not just Network Rail who are being bloody minded here. There are very good reasons for eliminating level crossings where possible. Its just a pity that we now seem to live in a world in which sensible "compromise" has become a dirty word.

Peter

 

A ramped bridge to the proposed design will never be forgotten. Its hideous, intrusive presence will be unavoidable to anyone passing.

 

As a toffee nosed local resident and member of Wareham Town Trust I am concerned that a number of correspondents on this string prefer to give a strong opinion with out first checking their information.
The 2007 DfT Advice on inclusive mobility for Highway Managers includes the following sentences in paragraph 8.4.5 on Page 51

"Lifts are essential for Wheelchair users and for some people who have walking difficulties when there is a substantial change in levels.
They should be provided in preference to very long ramps."
The 2015 DfT Design Standards for accessible Stations repeats the same advice and makes it clear that ramps should not be used for any significant rise in level.
It also draws attention to the provisions of the 2010 Equality Act
That Act requires that proposals affecting any access of the public to services should not have a detrimental impact on any of the groups with protected characteristics.
It is clear that the lengthy ramps proposed will have a detrimental impact on a significant number of people which requires Network Rail to plan provisions to mitigate the effect on rail passengers and Dorset CC will have make similar provisions for the other users of the crossing.
Wareham Town Trust have already obtained legal advice from a QC which has been shared with NR and DCC that their proposals do not meet the requirements of the Equality Act.

This is not a unique situation, although some aspects of the history are unusual, and this was shown by the fact that last autumn DfT ran a competition for partnerships and interested organisations to develop new approaches to making stations more accessible. Dorset CC ignored a request from the Wareham Town Council and Town trust to from a partnership to make a bid for funds to come up with new proposals to solve this problem.

If anyone has constructive suggestions on how to persuade the staff and managers in Network Rail and Dorset CC to read the legislation and Regulations concerning how the present day requirements for access, and then to engage with the local community, then please share.

 

You appear to be trying to tackle two issues here.
1) NR may or may not need to make the station compliant with the 2015 DfT Design Standards for accessible Stations, many stations never will be (including London Underground stations) and I believe there may be acceptable reasons for non compliance.

2) The permissive path is in all the arguments I have seen put forward regarding the footpath is that it is for the towns residents to use, which is why I assume DCC lease it (and ALL of us in Dorset contribute to in a minor way). The lease may stop NR just closing it, which normally any landowner is entitled to do with a permissive path, however if SWR decided to put ticket barriers at the station the crossing issue would be something for DCC to solve, not NR.

What really winds me up is the continued rantings (often from people I normally respect) involved with this issue, who claim any flat crossing is safe on the MTDR. A simple YouTube search on level crossing misuse will show that this is blatantly not the case (for both road and foot crossings, because people will not follow simple safety rules. Therefore you have to make them idiot proof, and despite being absolutely no fan of NR it is grossly unfair that every time there is an incident where someone ignores signs or warnings it still somehow ends up being their fault.

 

I've got a very simple suggestion. Reopen the road across this crossing. Refit it with old-fashioned swing gates that are either closed to the road or closed to the railway (power-operated remotely, of course). Tell NR and the ramp architects to get stuffed... and remove this discussion, which is of tenuous relevance to the SR, to its own thread.

 

The connection with SR is far from tenuous as until the problem with the crossing is resolved the London end crossover can't be used thereby preventing locomotives from running round the train standing at either Wareham platform. Whilst this is not a problem for serviceable DMUs it effectively removes the possibility of running a steam hauled service between Swanage and Wareham.

 

It also affects the DMUs as the ideal Wareham link timetable to robustly interface with both the main line service and SR heritage services has the DMU arrive in the up platform and use the London end crossover to access the down sidings emerging later to commence the down leg from the down platform. Until the crossing issue is resolved one way or another the DMU can not access the sidings and is limited to a tight reversal in the down platform. The timetabling just about works but limits flexibility, resilience and some other service options.

I've never understood how the full barrier crossing solution is OK for poole high street (pedestrianised shopping precinct) and not for this location? The best solution from a Wareham residents point of view is to implement this and commission the crossover and siding access.


also see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14246.0;prev_next=next

 

Poole High Street Level Crossing is legally a highway...albeit a pedestrian one

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-en...-crossing-video-released-to-highlight-dangers

 

I guess that answers that question.

 

Was this really only a year ago?

 

Interesting that all the Wareham trains have appeared as of last Sunday in RTT on the same timings as last year and shown as a WCRC service again. I understand little of NR pathing and timetabling (and even less after the recent Northern shambles) but will this just be to protect the paths does anyone know?

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P93007/2018/06/13/advanced

 

Moving on slightly from crossings: the vast majority of heritage lines that don't directly interact with NR have a degree of flexibility in timetabling, either on an occasional basis (adjusted for galas, to fit in a special working etc or year to year to optimise the service pattern.

However, a national timetable change is quite a big thing. So does having scheduled trains to Wareham limit the ability of the Swanage Railway to adjust their own timetable, so as to avoid knock-on impacts on the mainline? On a Saturday (as an example) there are I believe at least two trains per hour each way through Wareham (Bouremouth - Weymouth), so the timetable once out onto the mainline must be quite rigidly defined.

Tom

 

Not quite what I asked!

The road north out of Swanage (originally for vehicles as well as pedestrians) was surely likewise a highway for centuries before the railway existed. When the railway was built a level crossing was created. In most places, including Poole, the right of way remained. Are you saying that Swanage was different, the right of way being removed when the railway was built? If so, why was that? Or was it removed only much later when the new road and bridge were built?

 

Not really, I'm not trying to say that the Poole crossing isn't abused. I'm asking why Wareham needs to be replaced by ramps when the clearly much busier (and one would think higher risk) one at Poole doesn't? Why is the full barrier solution ok for Poole and not for Wareham?

I think this question underpins much of the opposition at Wareham. It appears the rules of risk assessment are not being equally applied.

The question of right of way only comes in to it in that Wareham could be closed without providing an alternative (when the lease expires) where as Poole would would have to have some sort of lift/ramp/underpass.

Swanage Railways official position BTW has always been to be neutral on the engineering solution at Wareham, only campaigning for timely compromise to enable the full track layout at the station to be bought in to use as soon as possible.

 

The ideal solution for the Swanage railway would be to use the bay platform at Wareham. Then the foot crossing would not be an issue for it.

Obviously that’s unlikely to happen for a long time, because it won’t be cheap!

 

In legal terms Poole is a highway and therefore has barriers whilst Wareham is a foot path.
There is no "barriered" system in the UK for footpaths.
The rules for risk assessment ARE being equally applied.

Poole CCTV is surrounded by buildings owned/leased by different companies and no room for a suitable ramped footbridge.
Subway would not work as it would be prone to flooding (would have to go down 5m or more).

NR know that it cannot be just closed without providing a "suitable " alternative.