Jump to content

IoW light rail conversion proposed


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

SWR were offering carriages free to a good home, so someone shelling out £32k for a rusted-through shell seems... unlikely.

 

Anyway, the temporary footbridge is now going up at Brading so the old one can be sorted out - quite why it's needed with a foot crossing and no trains for many months is hard to understand, but the views should great....

 

51175434549_2f261b25d0_z.jpg

Brading by Chris, on Flickr

 

Ah yes, but we don't know how long it will take for the old one to be re-vamped to its new purpose. I say this because there is still work going on at Pier Head and St Johns (on the previous contract), and quite substantial in the case of the former, when the railway should have been opening about now.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Ah yes, but we don't know how long it will take for the old one to be re-vamped to its new purpose. I say this because there is still work going on at Pier Head and St Johns (on the previous contract), and quite substantial in the case of the former, when the railway should have been opening about now.

 

 

True, but why would it matter? Passengers can just use the foot crossing at the other end, which they'll probably prefer to this temporary one anyway. The whole thing is bizarre.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think that if you proposed replacing a bridge with a level crossing you'd get laughed out of the safety review panel committee, or whatever body makes those decisions. You wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on at the hindsight reviews if something did go wrong and someone got hurt.

 

Plus the line is not closed. There may be no timetabled passenger trains, but RRVs or training/ test runs of the 484s could come though at any time, unannounced.

Edited by Zomboid
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/05/2021 at 22:23, Christopher125 said:

Interesting video this showing a steam-hauled clearance run through Platform 2 at Brading, might be worth trying again at this rate...

 

 

I was there on that day, standing near the footbridge when the test train came in. the tube car sounded its whistle to signal to the drivers, and the doors open and closed as well! I'd run out of cine film and ordinary film by then and couldn't afford any more.

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

Wheelchair accessibility is probably the answer.

 

I'm not sure I follow? Neither footbridge will be PRM-compliant, anyone using a wheelchair will need to use the foot crossing at the other end which is being rebuilt with suitable ramps down to track level.

 

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I think that if you proposed replacing a bridge with a level crossing you'd get laughed out of the safety review panel committee, or whatever body makes those decisions. You wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on at the hindsight reviews if something did go wrong and someone got hurt.

 

Nothing's being replaced - there was, and still will be, a footpath crossing at the other end of the station which will also give access to the other platform.

 

The footbridge is additional, and won't be needed until passenger trains start serving Platform 2... eventually. The bi-directional signalling could even delay that, if services start off hourly.

 

Edited by Christopher125
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

Nothing's being replaced - there was, and still will be, a footpath crossing at the other end of the station which will also give access to the other platform.

 

The footbridge is additional, and won't be needed until passenger trains start serving Platform 2... eventually. The bi-directional

Even temporarily the notion of replacing a bridge with a level crossing wouldn't fly.

 

The old bridge is part of a public footpath isn't it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Even temporarily the notion of replacing a bridge with a level crossing wouldn't fly.

 

Perhaps, but it's all semantics - the foot crossing will be open and available regardless.

 

Besides, with the stairs of this temp bridge located at the far Ryde end of the platform the foot crossing won't be much further to walk anyway.

 

Quote

The old bridge is part of a public footpath isn't it?

 

Nope, the footpaths use foot crossings either side of the station.

Edited by Christopher125
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

 

Perhaps, but it's all semantics - the foot crossing will be open and available regardless.

 

Besides, with the stairs of this temp bridge located at the far Ryde end of the platform the foot crossing won't be much further to walk anyway.

 

 

Nope, the footpaths use foot crossings either side of the station.

 

Officially, (according to info on another site) the foot crossing is controlled by permission given from the signaller at St Johns to the member of staff at Brading, on request, to use it, who then has to supervise its use. So, unless you turn up somewhat early for your train (which wheelchair and other such users tend to do) you won't be using the foot crossing, unless willing to pick up a fine.

 

Of course, it is irrelevant in the off-peak season, when all trains will use P 1.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

Officially, (according to info on another site) the foot crossing is controlled by permission given from the signaller at St Johns to the member of staff at Brading, on request, to use it, who then has to supervise its use. So, unless you turn up somewhat early for your train (which wheelchair and other such users tend to do) you won't be using the foot crossing, unless willing to pick up a fine.

 

I've seen the suggestion that permission would be gained from the signalman but it's not clear how this would work - the station is unstaffed and the foot crossing carries a reasonably well used footpath. They could re-route it but I've seen nothing mentioned so far.

 

Quote

Of course, it is irrelevant in the off-peak season, when all trains will use P 1.

 

Are you sure? I was expecting trains to pass at Brading all year round.

Edited by Christopher125
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Officially, (according to info on another site) the foot crossing is controlled by permission given from the signaller at St Johns to the member of staff at Brading, on request, to use it, who then has to supervise its use. So, unless you turn up somewhat early for your train (which wheelchair and other such users tend to do) you won't be using the foot crossing, unless willing to pick up a fine.

 

Of course, it is irrelevant in the off-peak season, when all trains will use P 1.

 

If it is a Public Footpath as suggested in some of the above posts obstructing it (except perhaps during the actual passage of a train level crossing style, with appropriate legal status) is a criminal offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. Offenders can face a fine and criminal record. So any staff tasked with say locking a gate across the path between uses would be legally obliged to refuse to do it as an unlawful instruction, or obey and risk ending up in court. Members of the public also have a legal right to take the shortest reasonable route around an obstruction on a public right of way, which then opens up another can of worms.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Trog said:

 

If it is a Public Footpath as suggested in some of the above posts obstructing it (except perhaps during the actual passage of a train level crossing style, with appropriate legal status) is a criminal offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. Offenders can face a fine and criminal record. So any staff tasked with say locking a gate across the path between uses would be legally obliged to refuse to do it as an unlawful instruction, or obey and risk ending up in court. Members of the public also have a legal right to take the shortest reasonable route around an obstruction on a public right of way, which then opens up another can of worms.

 

However a lot of rights of way aren't actually rights of way at the point they cross railway land, they're just permissive. It depends on all sorts of complex factors often going right back to the original act of parliament authorizing the railway in the first place.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nick C said:

However a lot of rights of way aren't actually rights of way at the point they cross railway land, they're just permissive. It depends on all sorts of complex factors often going right back to the original act of parliament authorizing the railway in the first place.

 

I think that is a bit doubtful as there are cases where the railway had to put up with bridges over stations etc. where they could not put up ticket barriers because of a right of way.  Which as it was actively costing them money every day for ticket staff etc they would have been keen to change if they could.

 

I also suspect that most of the public rights of way would already have been in existence before the railways were built, and changing a short section legally from Public right of way to Permissive right of way seems a bit pointless. As unless you are actively planning to close the right of way at the time there is no real gain, for the railway. Also the MP's scrutinising the bill would presumably ask why do you want to change the status of all the paths if you have no intention of closing them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, Trog said:

 

I think that is a bit doubtful as there are cases where the railway had to put up with bridges over stations etc. where they could not put up ticket barriers because of a right of way.  Which as it was actively costing them money every day for ticket staff etc they would have been keen to change if they could.

 

I also suspect that most of the public rights of way would already have been in existence before the railways were built, and changing a short section legally from Public right of way to Permissive right of way seems a bit pointless. As unless you are actively planning to close the right of way at the time there is no real gain, for the railway. Also the MP's scrutinising the bill would presumably ask why do you want to change the status of all the paths if you have no intention of closing them.

As I say, it depends on a lot of factors. I'm no expert, I just know that I've seen signs specifically pointing out that the crossings aren't a right of way and so can be closed at any time - there's one at Medsteand and Four Marks station on the MHR where the bridleway crosses - and the official rights of way map clearly shows the bridleway stopping before the railway.

 

The IOW RoW map isn't clear enough to tell the status of the crossing in question unfortunately...

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the presence of a right of way on an OS map is no longer definitive. There is a path across a field near here which the Council intended to make a right of way, even put up the posts for the signs, but no gates or stiles were ever installed and it never actually became a right of way - but it is on the map. There is another nearby which locals say has never been a right of way, but again is on the map.

Jonathan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

 

I've seen the suggestion that permission would be gained from the signalman but it's not clear how this would work - the station is unstaffed and the foot crossing carries a reasonably well used footpath. They could re-route it but I've seen nothing mentioned so far.

 

 

Are you sure? I was expecting trains to pass at Brading all year round.

 

It depends on the service being offered, If the frequency drops to hourly (or increases to every 20 mins) then the passing loop won't be needed.

 

However its important to remember that the railway is not a tourist attraction - it has an important public transport function to full fill and as such I imagine the weekday winter timetable will remain half hourly, the reduction in frequency being in the evenings / weekends.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

It depends on the service being offered, If the frequency drops to hourly (or increases to every 20 mins) then the passing loop won't be needed.

 

I was just remarking on the 'off peak season' - aside from Winter Sundays, evenings etc it's half-hourly all year round.

 

Even when they aren't, without passenger information screens it would seem unwise to confuse people by putting Down trains in the Up platform.

Edited by Christopher125
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

without passenger information screens it would seem unwise to confuse people by putting Down trains in the Up platform.

 

Is it not going to have them installed? Even the St. Albans Abbey branch stations have information screens now, as well as (perhaps even more surprisingly) Sugar Loaf on the Heart of Wales line: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Loaf_railway_station

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Is it not going to have them installed? Even the St. Albans Abbey branch stations have information screens now, as well as (perhaps even more surprisingly) Sugar Loaf on the Heart of Wales line: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Loaf_railway_station

 

AIUI only Shanklin is gaining any screens (Pier Head and Esplanade already have them) - one appeared late last year under the canopy next to the taxi rank.

 

002+003 did another return trip to Fareham last night, that surely bodes well?

Edited by Christopher125
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
On 14/05/2021 at 11:57, corneliuslundie said:

And the presence of a right of way on an OS map is no longer definitive. There is a path across a field near here which the Council intended to make a right of way, even put up the posts for the signs, but no gates or stiles were ever installed and it never actually became a right of way - but it is on the map. There is another nearby which locals say has never been a right of way, but again is on the map.

Jonathan

Which is why you should always use the council's official rights of way map if you need to know for sure... The Hampshire one is pretty good, interactive and showing information about each RoW. The island one doesn't seem to be...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...