please empty your brain below
Tsk, everyone knows "Golf Links Crossing" in Crews Hill is really called Tingay Tops.

Steve | 09.08.22 - 8:04 a.m. | #

The time taken was even more glacial: Network Rail says they started to formulate their proposals in 2010, so arguably the due process took 12 years. Hundreds more have been closed in other parts of the country since 2010.

I wonder if part of the reason for the six or twelve year process is that only about half of the proposed closures were approved. 16 out of 25 in Cambridgeshire and 9 out of 22 in Suffolk (both approved in 2020), 37 out of 57 in Essex, Havering and Hertfordshire.

How dangerous are level crossings? How many deaths or injuries in say the last 12 years, compared to say zebra crossings?

Andrew | 09.08.22 - 8:28 a.m. | #

Glad Eve's crossing is remaining open. Used it many times (just not on the day they did the survey!). It's hard to do a big road-avoiding loop straddling the M25 without using it, I've found.

Matt | 09.08.22 - 8:31 a.m. | #

Andrew - by implication from the blog they are less dangerous than crossing a busy road bridge ... as that's why one stayed open.

Putters | 09.08.22 - 8:32 a.m. | #

Network Rail's philosophy is always "How could this be safer?" (see here)

"We believe the most effective way of reducing level crossing risk is to eliminate the crossing completely by closing it. Where we cannot do this we will look at options to make the crossing safer."

diamond geezer | Homepage | 09.08.22 - 8:40 a.m. | #

NR are determined to get rid of as many footpath level crossings as possible. Unfortunately this often means footpaths suffer quite lengthy diversions.

Adrian | 09.08.22 - 8:52 a.m. | #

I assume NR just want rid of the public liability if there was an accident. It's not as if road based alternatives can be called safer.

ap | 09.08.22 - 9:00 a.m. | #

Unfortunately, what is "safer" is not a single one-dimensional measure. Who is to say whether one person killed by a train every five years is better or worse than a particular number of injuries (and perhaps deaths) on nearby roads, some of which would have happened anyway. It can only be done by a nuanced judgment, which is bound to be challenged by people who think it should have gone the other way.

Malcolm of Kent | 09.08.22 - 10:00 a.m. | #

Last year I was in Northumberland on a walking trip, and reached a level crossing that went across four tracks of the East Coast Mainline. You were instructued to phone the signaller to see if it was safe to cross, lest you get hit by a train travelling at 125mph. The following day we had to do the same further up the line to cross two tracks. The following day was another level crossing where you didn't have to phone, but still had to factor in that trains were travelling at 125mph.

Frankly if those crossings are still open, I'm struggling to see what the problem is with these ones!

Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 09.08.22 - 10:17 a.m. | #

Such a contrast with safety on roads, where so often the relevant authorities seem to think that putting up a "Beware pedestrians crossing" sign where a public footpath crosses a main road is all that is needed.

Andrew S | 09.08.22 - 10:43 a.m. | #

My experience working in the rail industry is that Network Rail's dislike of any risk means they'd just close the lot if they could, but in some cases the hassle isn't worth it. British railways are some of the safest in the world, but that also has downsides.

My instinct is that most dangerous are those at the end of a platform where there's two tracks. As a person is about to cross the line they see a train at the platform, run to catch it and are then hit by a train going in the opposite direction.

Anders | 09.08.22 - 10:48 a.m. | #

Re: Woodhall. Is it still possible to view the SSSI? Is just the crossing closed (leaving some dead end stubs but you can see the embankments for geographical interest) or have they stopped the access path further back?

dg writes: Yes. No. Yes.

MilesT | 09.08.22 - 11:42 a.m. | #

"We need to close a pedestrian rail crossing as someone might get hurt"
"Right brothers, this calls for immediate discussion"

Six years later...

No wonder nothing ever happens any more when it takes six years just to put a fence up. In that time fifteen entire transport networks have probably been built in China.

daveid76 | 09.08.22 - 2:44 p.m. | #

There are loads of footpath crossings outside London in the countryside with no nearby road bridge as an alternative route, so they'll be open for years.

I went across Angerstein at the weekend, that was a ludicrous closure proposal for a line with 2 really slow freight trains a day crossing it.

Mikey C | 09.08.22 - 2:56 p.m. | #

See RAIB reports for when things go wrong.

Mike D | 09.08.22 - 3:12 p.m. | #

There was a case a number of years ago (so many I don't remember) when two people did die on such a crossing, and NR (or its predecessor) got a massive fine from the HSE. I believe (from conversations with railway people) that that either began or gave impetus to the process of closure or replacement. I know of one crossing where NR pay for a pair of security guards - complete with hut - to permanently man the crossing.

Sarah | 09.08.22 - 3:22 p.m. | #

Sarah:the incident you recollect occurred at Elsenham station (in Essex) in December 2005. Two teenage girls saw their Cambridge bound train in the opposite platform and, in their eagerness to catch it, went onto the level crossing and were hit (and killed) by a train travelling in the opposite direction - a scenario similar to that described by Anders in his comment.

In an attempt to increase the overall safety of the railway, Network Rail has been targetting level crossing closures over recent years. It is not just about safety alone, however; the closure of very lightly used crossings reduces Network Rail's costs of maintaining the approach paths and associated infrastructur such as gates and stiles.

Carllo | 09.08.22 - 4:56 p.m. | #

Sarah - if this is the crossing at St. Mary's Mill Stroud then the requirement for a manned crossing is written into the landowner's original agreement with the first railway company (which the landowner still have their copy of) and will probably stand forever.

Oliver Pearcey | 09.08.22 - 7:00 p.m. | #

Interesting discussion but a couple of highly pertinent points have been missed.

1) You also have to factor in the economic cost of an incident at a footpath crossing. A closure on some main lines would cost Network Rail six figure amounts (possibly seven figures if the closure amounted to hours). And that is before the aftermath cost (not necessarily financial) in criticism and having the Railway Accident Investigation Board requiring Network Rail and the Train Operating Company's co-operation in the investigation.

Cynically perhaps, although 'time lost' in road traffic collisions is calculated, this cost doesn't usually fall on a single authority and in any case is normally a lot less that for rail. It is not as if the trains can easily divert for a short distance.

2) One of the reasons for closure of foot crossing is to allow an increased speed limit on that stretch of line. Often it is solely the existence of a foot crossing and the necessary sighting time that restricts a trains speed. For this reason there are two road crossings north of Oxford that are proposed for closure and I suspect safety alone would not be enough to justify these particular closures.

Pedantic of Purley | 09.08.22 - 8:29 p.m. | #

From the back of my mind, I seem to recall that I read that Network Rail have three foot-crossings permanently staffed during train operating hours because they are considered so dangerous. I don't know where they are.

Oliver,
If that is the case, then it would take an Act of Parliament to remove the requirement to be manned. It is a bit like Berney Arms station. That can only be closed by an Act of Parliament or by closing the entire line.

Pedantic of Purley | 09.08.22 - 8:38 p.m. | #

Network Rail has been accused of using some closures to export the risk rather than eliminate it. One notorious example was Mexico Inn crossing mear Penzance, which, despite being well-used as it gaveaccess to the beach had just one recorded fatality in its 160 year history. NR closed it, the diversion being 600m long, half of it along an A-class road with no footway, and a blind bend on the bridge where it crosses the railway

Timbo | 10.08.22 - 7:09 a.m. | #

Trinity Lane crossing between Waltham Cross and Cheshunt was replaced by a footbridge but if you have reduced mobility and can't manage the footbridge the crossing keeper will open the LC gates to let you over.

Lincoln Road LC between Bush Hill Park and Enfield Town is staffed by a crossing keeper working wicket gates between 06:00hrs and 18:00hrs Mon - Sat. Outside these hours the wicket gates are left unlocked and the user has to stop, look and listen.

Dave Cockle | 10.08.22 - 8:14 a.m. | #

Indeed, the Trinity Lane level crossing was included in the order not for closure but for downgrading from a public road to a bridleway “subject to use by vehicular traffic by persons authorised by Network Rail” – the expectation being that pedestrians and cyclists will favour the new footbridge, which lacks ramps but has a groove for bicycles alongside the steps. The March decision letter noted that “NR intends to grant a licence to the owner of the allotments (Broxbourne Borough Council) whose invitees (the allotment holders) will be able to cross the railway under the crossing keeper’s supervision”. So level-headed pedestrians, ungroovy cyclists, horse-riders and supervised motoring invitees can still cross on the level.

The decision letter also notes that the Cadmore Lane footpath level crossing “has been physically closed since 2014” after the opening of the ramped bridge alongside. At least the Secretary of State got to approve the metaphysical closure. As the inspector put it in 2020, “Network Rail seeks to regularise the existing arrangement which has been available on the ground for some years. The footpath [level] crossing has been closed, informally, by agreement with the Highway Authority.” So, unlawfully between 2014 and 2022. Did Kinder Scout die in vain?

Incidentally, the order wasn’t “passed in Parliament”, it was signed into law (“made”) by a civil servant in the name of a government minister. That’s the constitutional difference between primary legislation (acts of parliament) and delegated legislation (orders and regulations). Indeed this particular order was not even subject to parliamentary scrutiny let alone approval, as no such referral is provided for by the enabling Act for orders relating only to railways

Rich G | Homepage | 10.08.22 - 10:11 a.m. | #

Live in Lincoln Road, they shut the level crossing in 2012, best thing ever for those in Lincoln Road. Converted our road from a cut through into a quiet close.

Kevin Donald Broad | 12.08.22 - 11:27 p.m. | #

The industry has completely lost the plot pursuing these sort of issues. There are millions of miles of roads in the uk whee anyone can cross a road without any protection except experience and common sense. No wonder the railways are costing so much to run.

Nicholas Lewis | 14.08.22 - 9:14 p.m. | #

Thirty something years ago BR sought to close a disused foot crossing north of Brookmans Park - over four tracks with frequent trains. Nothing much of the crossing remained and a diversion via Bulls Lane bridge was available. Objections were received, so the Council was unwilling to agree to the closure. BR erected whistle boards, saying that was essential if people really used the crossing, as was claimed. It did not take very long before the affluent and influential residents of Brookmans Park were fed up with all the horn blowing and the closure was promptly agreed.

Greg Beecroft | 15.08.22 - 9:42 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy