Level crossing stupidity...

[eastglosmog]

Well, they have another 28 days to build a new bridge, or more likely obtain a new temporary closure order as the works have not been completed.  I have known these things to be renewed numerous times until cash strapped county highways departments get around to doing anything (badger sets undermining bridleways seem to be the worst).

[Hobby]

"A ramped pedestrian access leading to a replacement bridge over the railway would be the optimum solution.”

 

Someone's not going to like that! Not only having to walk a few feet further, but ugly as sin as well...

[Trog]

1 hour ago, eastglosmog said:

Well, they have another 28 days to build a new bridge, or more likely obtain a new temporary closure order as the works have not been completed.  I have known these things to be renewed numerous times until cash strapped county highways departments get around to doing anything (badger sets undermining bridleways seem to be the worst).

 The closure order has already been renewed several times since 2019, but as Martin W. pointed out the closure is stated to only run until the earlier of the set date or when the when the declared inspection work was finished. As I doubt that even Network Rail are still on site inspecting a bridge they removed three years ago therefore the footpath must have been open but illegally blocked since the inspection work was finished, as that was when the closure orders would have expired. The renewed closures having expired as they came into force as the work they were stated to run only for the duration of had already finished.

 

As for disabled ramps there is not much space on the downside, to the extent that the top part of the stairs on to the old bridge which were quite steep were part of the bridge deck but hung below the rest of the bridge deck level over platform 1 DF.

[corneliuslundie]

With corners at the ends wide enough to be taken at full speed in a mobility scooter of course.

Seriously, one of the issues is often finding room enough for such ramps without sterilising space needed for other purposes.

.

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

or more likely obtain a new temporary closure order as the works have not been completed. 

 

That's debatable. The legal part of the closure notice says:

 

Notice is hereby given that the Order made by Central Bedfordshire Council on the 28th day of January2019 the effect of which will be to prohibit any person proceeding on foot along the length of footpath No68, Leighton Buzzard which extends from Ordnance Survey Grid Reference (OSGR) TL 9105, 2497 toOSGR TL 9111, 2495 has been continued in force with the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport until 30 January 2022 ... ... the Order will continue in force until 30 January 2022 or until the works have been completed, whichever is the earlier.

 

The original 2019 order was for an inspection of the bridge, which must surely be deemed complete if it was demolished 2 years ago:

 

 https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/82/countryside/431/rights_of_way/2

 

Leighton Buzzard Footpath No. 68

Closure to enable an assessment of the bridge to understand what repairs are needed.

 

It's possible of course that the bridge has been dismantled rather than demolished, and is even now still undergoing a detailed inspection in a laboratory.

 

This is the Google view of the bridge in 2011. It looks to be in a poor state then, so must have been even worse 8 years later:

 

 https://goo.gl/maps/NtjZeVpkogJRgnf58

 

Martin.

Edited January 3, 2022 by martin_wynne
google link added

[big jim]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

"A ramped pedestrian access leading to a replacement bridge over the railway would be the optimum solution.”

 

Someone's not going to like that! Not only having to walk a few feet further, but ugly as sin as well...

 

exhibit A

 

The monstrosity that is Tubbs lane bridge over the east/west line in Bicester 

[boxbrownie]

14 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

If nothing else, I think this thread has exposed one truth, though one that may be unpalatable to some.

 

It is that disability is a very broad term and it may not be practical (at least for now) for people with specific issues to go absolutely anywhere, entirely without occasional assistance from another person, whatever gadgetry is available to help. The scope of support equipment designed to increase mobility is not limitless, despite what the adverts may imply, though robotics may well extend it in time.

 

After all, I don't think we could imagine circumstances under which a totally blind person could use such a crossing safely without help even if he/she was familiar with it, whereas a partially-sighted person might have no difficulty at all.

 

John 

The same could be said in context for a lot of fit and healthy able bodied people, how many need rescuing from cliffs, mountains and moors after ill judges walk, run or climb?

[Hobby]

Incidentally here's what's involved when a flat crossing (and in this case a footbridge) is replaced with a new ramped and stepped footbridge. The one near Mexborough, Ferryboat Lane crossing... It also shows just how big a structure the new bridge is...

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/east-coast/ferryboat-lane-footbridge-reconstruction/#:~:text=The new footbridge will have,Council at Network Rail's request.

 

In particular you should read this document:

 

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/ferryboat-lane-footbridge-reconstruction/Ferryboat Lane footbridge reconstruction/nr07 ferryboat lane twao - consultation report - march 2020.pdf

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Hobby
spelling

[Dunsignalling]

2 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

The same could be said in context for a lot of fit and healthy able bodied people, how many need rescuing from cliffs, mountains and moors after ill judges walk, run or climb?

Agreed, poor judgement (at least occasionally) is something from which few of us are entirely immune....

[boxbrownie]

13 minutes ago, big jim said:

 

exhibit A

 

The monstrosity that is Tubbs lane bridge over the east/west line in Bicester 

Looks more like an effort to gain some kind of design award it’s that awful 

 

Might as well go all out and put a lift in…..or Friday night toilets as the station staff call them 

Edited January 3, 2022 by boxbrownie

[martin_wynne]

16 minutes ago, big jim said:

 

exhibit A

 

The monstrosity that is Tubbs lane bridge over the east/west line in Bicester 

 

How much did that cost?

 

And how much would it cost to have a helicopter on permanent standby for all the local crossings, with a push button to summon it when needed?

 

Martin.

[Hobby]

When looking for a daylight photo of the Bicester one I came across this thread on Pistonheads, the reply from the ex NR guy was interesting and although the thread was in 2015 I recon the principle is still much the same...

 

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=191&t=1476707&i=20

[Hobby]

6 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

How much did that cost?

 

And how much would it cost to have a helicopter on permanent standby for all the local crossings, with a push button to summon it when needed?

 

To put things in perspective not all crossings are replaced with such bridges, I suspect it's based on type of usage observed during the review process. I suspect a helicopter on standby 24hrs a day would be far more than a few million quid for a new bridge, though (in the thread above £2.4m was quoted for one of them). Not to mention more noisy and polluting as well... 

[Jonboy]

Funny isn’t it, when the father in law was on crutches the last thing he wanted was the extra distance from those ramps (now in a wheelchair it’s more useful) even the obvious methods of disabled access can inconvenience some…

[martin_wynne]

2 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I suspect a helicopter on standby 24hrs a day would be far more than a few million quid for a new bridge

 

One helicopter could cover all the crossings on a significant length of line. It would be reasonable to expect an intending user to wait for it to arrive.

 

Martin.

[big jim]

There was actually quite a hoo-ha when the Bicester bridge was first built, as it’s right next to a Childrens nursery and the zig zag pathway looks right down into the play area so there wa a concern from the nursery that weirdos would stand in the bridge and look at the kids, I believe there is some sort of shielding up there now 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-27304880

 

 

I remember the foot crossing near braunston jn near Burton in trent being replaced by a bridge, the crossing had suffered from a lot of misuse, it’s not a nice one, 100mph line used to hate driving over it if something was coming the other way, anyway they put a bridge in with full ramped access and it ended up overlooking the gardens (and bedroom windows) of the adjacent houses, they complained and the bridge was removed, as was the crossing so now there is no means of crossing there at all, the nearest road bridge is only about 100m away anyway so that’s obviously taken it’s place 

 

EDIT: 2014 news article link added 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by big jim

[Hobby]

3 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

One helicopter could cover all the crossings on a significant length of line. It would be reasonable to expect an intending user to wait for it to arrive.

 

Martin.

 

I thought you were joking hence my slightly tongue in cheek reply, but it seems not, look at the cost of keeping a helicopter on permanent standby, also bear in mind how you'd get a wheelchair into one (!), then there's the preparation of safe places for it to land on either side of the track... I could go on! Think you'll find a bridge is more cost effective!!  

[PhilJ W]

31 minutes ago, Jonboy said:

Funny isn’t it, when the father in law was on crutches the last thing he wanted was the extra distance from those ramps (now in a wheelchair it’s more useful) even the obvious methods of disabled access can inconvenience some…

As I've mentioned I use a rollalong. There is a bridge for wheelchairs at the Buckingham Rail Centre with a lift on the up side and a ramp on the down side. Apart from  the extra distance of travel required the ground approaching the lift is rough and broken. This is very difficult to negotiate with any manual aid or wheelchair. Worst of all is loose surfaces such as gravel that pull on the wheels.

[Nick C]

41 minutes ago, Jonboy said:

Funny isn’t it, when the father in law was on crutches the last thing he wanted was the extra distance from those ramps (now in a wheelchair it’s more useful) even the obvious methods of disabled access can inconvenience some…

Just look at the PRM requirements for rail replacement buses for another example - according to discussions elsewhere on the Internet, the fact that it's a blanket 'all vehicles must comply' means that coaches, with toilets, can't be used - making it much more difficult for people with, for example, Chron's disease (not sure of the spelling...), to travel.

[peach james]

59 minutes ago, Jonboy said:

Funny isn’t it, when the father in law was on crutches the last thing he wanted was the extra distance from those ramps (now in a wheelchair it’s more useful) even the obvious methods of disabled access can inconvenience some…

The one the image is of has (what looks to me) to be sensibly designed stairs as well, for those able to manage them.

[alastairq]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

I thought you were joking hence my slightly tongue in cheek reply, but it seems not, look at the cost of keeping a helicopter on permanent standby, also bear in mind how you'd get a wheelchair into one (!), then there's the preparation of safe places for it to land on either side of the track... I could go on! Think you'll find a bridge is more cost effective!!  

Not forgetting restrictions to flying due to weather issues?

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, big jim said:

 

exhibit A

 

The monstrosity that is Tubbs lane bridge over the east/west line in Bicester 

 

You'd need to make sure your mobility scooter was fully charged before tackling that beast!

 

John

Edited January 3, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[alastairq]

14 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

You'd need to make sure your mobility scooter was fully charged before tackling that beast!

 

John

Would there be a market for a grapnel, and rocket line thrower, with electric winch?

 

Maybe Stannah could be prevailed upon to come up with a public-safe device to electrically haul wheelchairs, etc, up & over? Continuous belt maybe, on one side?

Decades ago, I had nearly a year dealing with crutches.  I found ramps to be more tiresome to negotiate than stairs, to be honest....But I was a lot fitter then.

 

Thus far, nobody has mentioned the option of tunnels?

[Dunsignalling]

2 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Would there be a market for a grapnel, and rocket line thrower, with electric winch?

 

Maybe Stannah could be prevailed upon to come up with a public-safe device to electrically haul wheelchairs, etc, up & over? Continuous belt maybe, on one side?

Decades ago, I had nearly a year dealing with crutches.  I found ramps to be more tiresome to negotiate than stairs, to be honest....But I was a lot fitter then.

 

Thus far, nobody has mentioned the option of tunnels?

Maybe a trebuchet?

[eastglosmog]

14 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Interesting. It was demolished in 2019. Here is the Temporary closure order:

 

 https://centralbedfordshire.app.box.com/s/2py1ao06bzw7m6wo15qoo781k8jho453

 

"The Order will continue in force until 30 January 2022 or until the works have been completed, whichever is the earlier."

 

So for the last 2 years it has been an open legal right of way. And Network Rail are obstructing a public highway -- which is a criminal offence.

 

Martin.

No, the Temporary closure order you link to has the words "This Footpath closure is required to allow for continuing construction work around a previously unsafe bridge. The closure is expected to continue from 30th January 2021 to 30th January 2022."  Whatever the original temporary closure order was for, the current one is for continuing construction work and can be renewed if need be.  As it says, "If the works are not completed within twelve months the Order may be extended for a longer period with the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport".