Project Wareham

Dorset Council, in common with just about every local authority in the country, is severely stretched financially. It isn't (yet) at the point of needing to issue a Section 114 notice (what the media tend to call "going bankrupt") but it might have to do so at some point in the next couple of years, especially if the Government call in an education loan it has made to the Council (and every other Education Authority in the country - Dorset isn't unique with that Sword of Damocles over it (*).

If they are forced into issuing an s.114 notice, they will in effect have to fall back to setting a budget that meets what is called the "Legal Minimum Service Level", i.e. funding only the things they are statutorily required to fund. It is very unlikely that that includes a gate keeper on a pedestrian level crossing in rural Dorset when there are alternative options. So in a fairly short space of time, you may well be in a situation where NR won't allow an unattended crossing, and DC can't legally pay for an attendant.

If a ramp on the existing footbridge is so problematic, what about a ramp up to the A351 bridge and back down the other side? There could surely be no heritage concern and in terms of gradient and length, the height gain required is somewhat similar, so it would hardly be any worse than the snaking ramps proposed on the existing footbridge.

(*) It's a bit arcane, but in essence education costs more to fund than councils can afford, so the Government gives an annual loan to cover the shortfall. In effect that shifts council spending into Government borrowing. However, the Government would like to reduce the scale of its borrowing, and one way to do so is to force councils to settle those debts; doing so is likely to push many councils into issuing Section 114 notices. In technical accountancy speak, this is known as "robbing Peter to pay Paul".

Tom

 

I think to the council and residents any ramp, even as a path on the road bridge, is unacceptable.
But as someone mentioned earlier presumably the new mega council we be saddled with resolving it.
If the "man in the hut" resolved the ORR enforcement notice issue, presumably taking him away instantly closes the crossing.
I am not sure why it looks like they either relaid or reballasted one of the sidings last year if you cannot use them with the current set up.

 

The local press continue to stoke the fire front page and page 4 here
https://www.purbeckgazette.co.uk/issues/

Love the last line of the Gazette report "No accidents have been reported at the site in 40 years"
Of course we all know that cuts nothing with the ORR, otherwise we would have non CDL Mk1's on the network.

Meanwhile the other local paper had this on the front page



Smiled at the speed reduction idea, guess that would be a man with a flag walking in front, bearing in mind how long even at 25 mph it would take to stop a train.
But not as much as the suggestion that it would impact punctuality on the Weymouth line, already hardly a beacon for on time services.

 

Thinking laterally, scrap the crossing, install a barrow crossing at the London end of Wareham station. Staff member subsidised by DC could issue tickets , keep toilets open, look after wheelchair passengers and control crossing.

 

I am sure the residents would object to the slope at the platform ends.

 

I suspect the locals would complain about the time it took for trains to cross the footpath crossing if there was a speed limit as well.
How did the local paper come up with no incidents reported in the last 40 years? Yet they quote misuse of the crossing recorded by Office of Road and Rail. Certainly nothing is listed in the last 20+ years on the RAIB website, but how many "near misses" were recorded by signallers and Control?

Cheers, Neil

 

If I were campaigning, I'd make "no incidents" mean "no injuries", and discount "near misses".

 

It's also quite a logical swerve to go from "no incidents while the crossing was manned" to therefore "no risk if the crossing keeper is removed".

Tom

 

Let's face it, this is a campaign group that are determined to have a specific outcome - and everything else is secondary to that

 

I see in newsfeeds about Wales and New Zealand
https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2025/0...see-north-wales-level-crossings-replaced.html
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/02/21/govt-commits-200m-to-help-remove-auckland-rail-level-crossings/
The trend is to replace level crossings with bridges and ramps for safety and risk assessments of preventing any near misses and accidents. Especially when rail services might increase.
This will probably be the line the rail minister will give to the MP next week.
Another alternative to ramps, and/or gates is to also use a bus, with push chair access, between the two halves of town.
Whether network rail will look again at improved automation using improved technology and gates (rather than ramps and bridge) on the Wareham foot level crossing we shall see?,

 

It has long been the policy of the ORR that all foot crossings should be done away with. The facts speak for themselves with a list of fatalities over the years. No doubt if one of the residents was run down by a train there would soon be a demand for a bridge. Trains and people do not mix. Even Network Rail don't always keep their trackworkers safe.

 

At the risk of thread swerve, and probably a question for @Romsey - what is NR's view on Gramshaw Road foot crossing (just west of Salisbury). Basically a foot crossing across a two-track mainline with no on-site crossing keeper. Would that eventually be on their radar to close or replace with a bridge?

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0748361,-1.8204699,128a,35y,172.03h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Tom

 

A tough one to answer since I retired and my contact in level crossing upgrades has changed job and route.
The trigger is how many close calls or incidents are reported at an individual crossing. If Gramshaw Road crossing is rarely reported by train crew, it will stay as it is now. If there are reports of misuse a variety of actions will be considered ranging from better signs, through warning lights to replacing the crossing with a footbridge or subway or just closing the crossing. Having walked across there over the years, I think a new structure is unlikely given the narrow access on the south of the line. As it is a public right of way, I think the closure has to go through a legal consultation.
As an aside, the crossing had a security guard when 60103 operated tours west of Salisbury in recent years.

Cheers, Neil

 

At the risk of prolonging the tangent, and from a Quick Look on Google earth it’s still there though I’ve not used it for a decade, there is or was a comedy crossing over the Chiltern Mainline just south of Bicester that isn’t even boarded. You go up one side of the embankment, over a stile, look left and right, walk across the two tracks (stepping over the rails), over another stile and down the other side of the embankment.

Just south of Bicester on a footpath linking the town with Launton. Two tracks at line speed.

 

Google Earth helpfully shows the nice lighter coloured sleepers that have been walked on by people who don’t fancy stumbling on ballast!

 

A fatality at a crossing is a tragic and devastating event. I wonder how many of those at Dorset Council and in Wareham have heard of the tragedy at Elsenham now nearly 20 years ago. Living in that area at the time, seeing its effect on a small community convinced me absolutely that foot crossings should be done away with.

 

The catch is that, whether you use Elsenham or AN Other example, people will rationalise why it will never happen to them.

 

There is a similar crossing on the Berks & Hants outside Frome, been over it many years ago

 

PM sending

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fatal-accident-at-bourneview-footpath-crossing-kenley

Another death a few weeks ago at another crossing.