Rother Valley Railway

I listened in to the Inquiry this morning - but missed evidence from one objector because I had a visitor. Interestingly the RVR's legal representative did not ask very many questions. There will be further documents posted to the website shortly including a response from RVR to the Eastwoods. It will be interesting to see their presentation on Friday. Proceedings were slow today at the Woodlands Centre - there was a 15 minute gap between each witness so that the area could be cleaned. The inspector is visiting Moat Farm this afternoon and walking the trackbed tomorrow afternoon.

 

That showed up today in the "Documents Submitted during the Inquiry" section of the Inquiry Web-site, here. I commend the sober and non-confrontational tone of the reply; in particular, the fact that the RVR have taken the Eastwoods' flooding concerns seriously, and have tasked their flood modellers to look into them. Now, modelling is not empirical evidence, but it's better than a non-detailed guess. That attitude matches the closing observation ("RVR remains happy to talk to Mr and Mrs Eastwood to see whether there is scope for working with them to restore the very good relationship they have previously enjoyed."), and both are particularly welcome.

Among the other new documents, this one was particularly interesting. Not for the content itself (it's deep legal 'angels on pinheads' material, so deep I completely glazed over), but because it shows the landowners are spending a great deal of high-powered legal talent in opposition to the proposed TWAO. One can easily see from this why the RVR must have felt that it had only two choices: give up the whole scheme altogether, or take the unfortunate path of compulsory purchase.

Noel

 

Fair play to the RVR in their dealings with the Eastwoods. Im sure it is one extra battle they really didn't wish to fight. It will be interesting to see how the inspector views this in the context of the TWAO overall.
Funnily enough, I've only just attempted to read the "implementations of planning permission" document, and like you, I bounced off it in fairly short order! The strategy now seems to be to try to pick as many tiny holes in the RVR documentation as possible, in the hope that it will add up to the perception of a larger one. It does give an impression that the game of hardball legalese has developed in intensity, and is now moving towards some kind of crescendo with the end of the enquiry now drawing closer.
For good, or even for ill, I'm sure that everyone will be glad when this is all over.

 

It will be interesting to see what the Eastwoods say in their evidence on Friday. I am not sure how this is relevant to the TWAO except to raise doubts about future provision of occupation crossings.
With regard to the Planning Permission document - I think it is saying that RVR should not have started work between Junction Road and Austen's Bridge without discharging certain conditions. I listened in to the Inquiry this morning to a lengthy discussion about Footpath 31 which outlined several options. It is very difficult to read how things are going - the inspector is very careful to remain neutral.
Both sides have assembled a good legal team and consultants. I just wonder how much the landowners have sent fighting the Order.

 

Having just read that document, what is it actually opposing, Is it opposing that Robertsbridge station was built, ,that land was purchased, then cleared, because the RVR Don't yet own all the land between Bodiam and Robertsbridge ? are the land owners in fact saying any development is unlawful because the whole line has not yet been purchased, Clearly this is clutching at straws throw enough mud, hopefully some might stick, ?

 

I also don't know what it is opposing. Robertsbridge Station was the subject of a seperate planning application so I think it relates to the clearance between Junction Road and Austin's Bridge. Incidentally there was some discussion this morning about the fence on RVR's side of Austin's Bridge which was supposed to have been moved to allow the Inspector access during his site inspection this afternoon. No doubt we will hear about it when the Inquiry re-opens on Friday Morning.

 

I would imagine it will not be a good look for the Objectors, if the inspector finds his way blocked by a fence, put there by one of the objectors her self, on land that isn't hers especially if she has been asked to remove it, and has not complied.

 

A few new filings today in the "Documents Submitted during the Inquiry" section, but nothing major.

Yes, that's what it seemed to me too, but it got too deep into the legal issues for me to tell if it was anything serious; as a couple of other posters have said, the opposers seem to be trying to scratch up whatever they can. (The opposers may have the same read I have, that government bodies seem to be generally in favour, so it's 'now or never'.)

To be expected. I wonder if the minister will go with whatever the inspector recommends (and it's hard to see how all the factors will stack up for them, how close their take will be to mine), or if there could be a major change in direction between the inspector's recommendation, and the final decision.

A lot, I suspect (going by the amount of legal research that had to have gone into their filings; plus for how much they've had legal representation listening to the hearings so far - not sure how much they've had, but those bills can mount up very quickly indeed). The interesting thing to me is how the RVR will respond if the landowners lose. Not that they're going to be all 'hah, hah, you lose' (they're not jerks); I was wondering if they'd try to take some of the sting out of such a loss by contributing to the landowners' costs. Or would that piss off the landowners, by making them feel like the RVR was trying to buy them?

Noel

 

If the RVR wins, I would hope that all the parties will then accept the ruling, And then talks can progress into buying back the sections of track bed, arranging access for the farmers etc , it will be in everyone's interest to try to at least have a working relationship, what no one needs is bad neibours,

 

The Landowners are represented by a QC - and they are not cheap! He has indicated that they will be applying for costs. They can only be awarded where the other party has acted unreasonably and this has resulted in extra work. So I suspect that, for example, they will try to get costs for looking at the changes as a result of discussions with Highways England.
A number of the recent documents point out areas of agreement between the two parties. RVR have indicated that they will continue to try to purchase the land by agreement. It's a question of wait and see I am afraid - it may be sometime before the report is produced since I understand that further site visits are scheduled for early September.

 

Just a quick update in the Inquiry this morning where we heard from Objectors. The A21 crossing figured in most of the objections, together with increased risk of flooding. The Eastwoods gave evidence using their original objection letter. The subsequent comments were confusing, but as I understood it - the two ALCs are used by vehicles to access camping north of the railway. The disputed third crossing is just used by pedestrians. The suggestion was that they would not be able to use the two ALC once the railway was open since the gates would need to be locked shut. The RVR's legal team asked what the result was of their taking legal advice over the disputed land - the response was that there had been no progress. He pointed out that they would be able to continue to use the 2 ALCs once the railway was open. The inspector had visited the area yesterday when he walked the trackbed.
In the introduction the Inspector indicated that he would be making further visits in early September - both accompanied and unaccompanied.
The Inquiry resumes on Tuesday - the objectors would be submitting details of the claim for costs over the next few days.

 

While I feel bad for the gentleman who lost his father in an LC accident, I'm not sure that the proposed A21 LC would be as risky, being on a heritage line limited to 25MPH. Although a number of heritage lines have LCs, the only fatal accident I recall on a heritage line is the gentleman who was killed in that shunting accident on the NYMR; IIRC there was also a passenger killed in a station, but I seem to recall that may have been a suicide. (The ORR 2019-20 safety report shows two people killed on the big railway at crossings, but those were pedestrians at footpath crossings; and presumably on higher speed lines.) I tried to find the RVR track diagram, to see how good the visibility at the A21 LC would be for the engineer (to maximise their available stopping time if there's someone on the track), but I suppose one would really need photographs to assess visibility, as it would depend on tree/etc growth. The Inquiry inspector might have the TWAO strictly mandate that the vegetation to be kept back to maximize the engineer's visibility.

Noel

 

Hi Noel,
I read that the other day, and found it utterly tragic. To have one's father killed right in front of you would define the rest of anyone's life. I don't know if you noticed from the Telegraph front page, but it would appear that either the son or his brother (it doesn't say which, only that they were 10 years old) were helping to operate the crossing gates with another man when the accident occurred. Just hideous to imagine.
One thing he did mention which had me scratching my head was the reference to 45 people being killed at the same location, before I realised that he was referring to the Bourne End in Hertfordshire, rather than the one on the Maidenhead to High Wycombe line in Buckinghamshire.
Nonetheless, a very sombre piece of history to find in the evidence.
Incidentally, does anyone know if the A21 crossing is still intended to be manned, or has that been superseded?

 

I didn't think there was ever an intention for the A21 crossing to be (locally) manned. At least not in the sense of a manual crossing keeper 'mans' the gates.
My understanding was that a crossing supervision cabin would be provided, but not adjacent to the crossing, to enable a person to monitor all three crossings (North St, A21 & Junction Rd) by CCTV. Don't know whether that intention still stands.

 

Thats what I meant. Originally the supervision cabin for all 3 crossings was intended to stand on the west side, and adjacent to, the A21. I don't know if that still remains the intention.

 

I must say, as one who used to use the level crossing in Coldmoorholme Lane regularly, and knew the area well, I was struggling to imagine what circumstance the Marlow Donkey derailing there could have resulted in 45 deaths. That sort of catastrophe would have wound up in local folklore. Thanks for pointing out the actual location.
He then mentions that in 2017-18 there were 394 incidents at LC's on the national rail network, 5 deaths and 7 vehicles hit. Sobering statistics- But one has to ask, how many of those incidents were the result of the train using the level crossing improperly?
As it happens, in 1988 a friend of mine was killed on the Marlow branch near Coldmoorholme Lane. He was walking on the track, in the dark, wearing a dark overcoat and was struck by a train. Knowing Nick, he probably had a walkman in his ears, and alcohol or similar may also have played a part. Point is, safety standards are all well and good, but if someone is determined to throw caution and self preservation to the wind, there is little that anyone else can do to prevent it

 

Thats a very good example of social Darwinism. No matter how many preventatives and safety features are put in place in the world, certain types of people will always find a way to circumvent them. Its like those you see standing on the edge of clifftops, taking selfies. They either end up with their faces spread all over the local news or social media as an eejit, which is probably what they want, or with their faces spread all over the beach below, which is what they probably unconsciously consider to be an occupational hazard. Daftness is, to a greater or lesser degree, inbuilt into all of us, and the more we are nannyed, the less we are encouraged to engage commonsense, and take responsibility for our own actions.
That wasn't meant to sound like a rant, btw!

 

I understand that is still the intention - recent drawings submitted to the Inquiry of the the A21 crossing show the supervision cabin next to the A21 accessed by a path from North Bridge Street. There is to be obstruction detection on the crossing.
One of the objectors mentioned the delays at the former level crossing on the A27 near Lewes [the road now crosses the railway by means of a Bridge] - however there were at least 6 closures per hour - the barriers being down for longer since it was a faster line.
Incidentally , the inspector has been asked to visit the level crossing on the A28 - not sure which one [Rolvenden or Northiam], he will do this in early September. These crossings are manually operated and next to a station so the closure time will be longer.

 

I just hope that the inspector takes into account that these are manually operated gates and as such the time it takes to open, then close the gates is going to be longer, than automatic barriers , because you can be sure the objectors will be using those timings to try to say, that having a level crossing, over the A21, will have a huge impact on traffic, of greater magnitude than what it would be, in reality, its really quite a clever tactic, don't object on the grounds of land having to be given up, but instead cloak it as a public issue and of the A21 , there are no plans to dual that section of A21, but of course local politicians such as Sally Anne Hart will be looking at local issues that may increase her vote share, and i guess having a dual carriage way from Hasting to the M25, hi speed trains from Hastings to Ashford, might gain her votes, but in reality, both are beset with problems,

 

I am unclear who has requested this visit. It maybe to show that KESR operate the existing level crossings safely. I think Sally Anne Hart's proof of evidence should appear on the website sometime soon. She did make mention the state of the A21 being a factor in Hastings not being able to attract Businesses. I think with the move to greener forms of transport - electric vehicles and the like - are likely to move investment in infrastructure away from the roads. The improvements proposed some years back to the A21 [which were subsequently cancelled] involved amongst other things a by-pass for Hurst Green - but this was to be single carriageway. The fact that there are queues on the approach to Hastings - not helped by the long delays to the completion of the link from Queensway to the A21 - seems to be forgotten.