Project Wareham

Here are the latest plans:

http://dorset.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s5375/Appendix 4.pdf

Not the most elegant but I'd hardly call it a monstrosity by DDA compliant footbridge standards

David R

 

And some pictures from before it was manned:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/14/article-1220268-06D07570000005DC-119_634x301.jpg

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/media/images/46539000/jpg/_46539368_-19.jpg

I belivee that the ongoing cost (120,000 + p.a.) paid by Dorset CC is a major factor as they do not have the funding to keep paying this

David R

 

Has been manned from 2009

 

From the evidence of the staff manning the crossing and numerous NR staff.

 

The gatekeeper is only there to as a reaction to said misuse and the ORRs threat to take proceedings against NR for the failure to do anything about crossing misuse. There is quite a bit of you tube footage out there and NR have ample records in their control logs to prove that this is not simply idle speculation.

Thus the gatekeeper is in lieu of a decent footbridge and is a temporary measure - BUT is only deployed on a part time basis meaning that outside of their normal daytime hours the crossing is open to misuse.

That gatekeeper also costs money - and in the long term will cost far more than a modern footbridge, particularly if you are going to provide the same level of protection 24 / 7 which is what the ORR demand of NR as regards a long term solution.

It would be nice if the railway industry didn't have to protect idiots from themselves - but just as current guidance is not to install any more half barrier level crossings because motorists seem incapable of not weaving round lowered barriers, when it comes to foot crossings we are forced to remove them because people seemingly cannot be trusted to use them correctly.

 

Obviously talking to the wrong people then...

 

The gate keepers have been there since 2009 and the level of misuse has dramatically reduced.
The gate keepers are on duty before the train service starts and are there until 0100. There has been no reported misuse of the crossing when the gate keepers are not on duty.

The "ample records of misuse" are from the days before the gate keepers were employed. They were employed due to the unacceptable level of misuse and as the crossing is leased to the county council its is their responsibility for any upgrades/safety improvements etc. The crossing is NOT a public right of way.

 

An examination of old maps shows that crossing replaced the former level crossing that took the A351 over the railway before the road bridge & bypass was built. As such it IS a public right of way (as are all roads except those constructed under special roads legislation - i.e. Motorways) and the right of unfettered access can only be removed after public consultation by the councils and the issuing of an official stopping up notice or confirming a suitable diversion. Given the previous road level crossing provided a route for those with mobility issues - the adjacent footbridge CANNOT be used as the diverted right of way until it has ramps fitted.

Thus if you have evidence the foot crossing at the site of the old level crossing is no longer a right of way then please provide it - because until then that crossing is still a public right of way.

Furthermore there is a precedent in law that if the public usually have access along a path for more than one calender year then it becomes a de-faco public right of way and it becomes very difficult to prevent public access in future - hence may business chose to close off footpaths across their property (which the Bluebell do at West Hoathly foot crossing on Christmas day every year) to prevent their rights to terminate public access being lost.

It may be that the council are financing the Gatekeeper position precisely because otherwise NR will apply to have the right of way extinguished and the crossing closed as per ORR demands to do something about the unacceptable risks that existed up to 2009

Now, turning to the gatekeepers (impossible for there to be only one on duty per day if they start around 06:00 with the first trains and go through to 01:00), they may well have reduced crossing abuse - but at what cost?

A rough calculation says that to cover the crossing constantly (as you suggest is the situation) we are talking of a minimum of 4 crossing keepers required, (don't forget the need for time off annual leave etc) , plus pay enhancements for working unsocial hours etc. That adds up to a tidy some of money every year which is not going to go away or get any less as time passes. You may think its a perfectly acceptable sum of money to cough up every year but the basic fact is ramps for the footbridge will cost a lot less than continuing to pay the costs of the crossing keeper for another decade.

That said, the saving grace is that at least the bill for said keeper (and by extension the inhabitants of Wareham's unwillingness to be sensible) is not bourne by the railway industry but by locals through their council tax and if they are happy for their council tax to be spent that way rather than on other things they may desire, so be it.

 

I believe that despite the risk assessment, there have been no injuries or fatalities on this crossing. Is this correct?

 

I have no knowledge as to whether this is the case (and 'near-misses' can result in serious psychological injuries even if there is no physical injury), although ORR involvement suggests that something has happened to attract that attention.

Nevertheless, the whole point of risk assessment is to examine activities and take necessary messages to reduce risk to as low as reasonably practical (ALARP) and thus prevent any injuries or fatalities.

Clearly, avoiding life changing injuries or deaths is a very good reason to do something (certainly in my book) but also in this day and age, our learned friends would have a field day if something did happen when there had been numerous misuses and hear-misses, and nothing had been done.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of a 'business case' - which is most affordable - continuing with gate-keepers or building a footbridge.

Steven

 

The principle is wonderful but the reality is that risk assessments are carried out in a constrained context. Put crudely, if it costs £1 million to save a life by building a footbridge but £1 million would save 10 lives if provided to the ambulance service, there is no method to decide where the money goes. I emphasise that my example is wholly arbitrary and is intended only to simply outline my argument.

 

Actually the P stands for 'practicable'.

 

There have been no fatalities or injuries since the gate keepers were appointed circa 2009

 

The gate keepers were employed as a temporary basis until a permanent solution was found..........8 years later they are still there.

 

I agree as I have spoken and witnessed people jumping the closed gates.....

 

There is a busy level crossing in Paignton town centre, many will know it as it is on the immediate approach to the main line station.
I understand that it was a place where motorists and pedestrians frequently tried to cross over as a train approached. To overcome this I believe the solution was to close the barriers when a train departed from Torquay. That means a longer wait for everyone as the train approaches quite slowly. However it must have solved the networks dilemma.

 

The Road Crossing crossing was stopped up when the road was closed and the crossing only exists because of a lease agreement between Network Rail and DCC.
There is no legal right of way remaining over the crossing under the terms of the original lease dating from 1980:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-10-28d.93.0

David R

 

People attempt to get through as the gate keepers try and close the gates....they don't jump the closed gate.