Level crossing stupidity...

[jim.snowdon]

The reverse also happens I remember one level crossing where Network Rail was crowing about having closed a level crossing because it was unsafe, and how wonderful they were. An internet search brought up a letter from the local council / statutory body complaining about the illegal closure, and Network Rails reply fobbing them off and ignoring the complaint that they were acting illegally.

Was it a level crossing, as in a public highway crossing, a user-worked (ie accommodation) crossing or a footpath crossing?

If the former, it is normal for an alternative form of crossing to be provided. Footpath crossings do require a process to be followed if they are classed as public rights of way, normally to demonstrate that their is a reasonable nearby alternative route. Accommodation crossings are rather simpler.

 

Jim

[Trog]

Possibly claiming something was unsafe could overide other concerns?

 

Keith

 

I don't think that the fact that you are doing something that makes the use of a public right of way (in this case I think it was a bridleway) unsafe, makes blocking the right of way without due process any less illegal.

 

More likely you should alter your activities so as to reduce to acceptable levels or remove the risk to the public using that right of way.

[Trog]

What was the outcome of this; Did Network Rail have to re-open the crossing, or did it remain closed ?

 

I believe that a footbridge is going to be provided.

[PhilJ W]

This is the real problem, a few well publicised prosecutions might make some of them think before acting/opening their mouths!

My solution would be to dig a trench (2'X2') across the road on both sides of the level crossing and leave them open whilst work is being carried out. I do however appreciate the H&S aspects of this for those working on the crossing but if anyone drives their car into the trenches its down to them.

[Trog]

I know of two occasions where someone has driven onto the line at a level crossing with the crossing surface removed, in one case the track and 12" of ballast were also out. Fortunately for the lady concerned who had just finished her shift in the site access cabin beside the crossing, one of her friends had a 12t tele crane handy and was able to lift her car back onto the road. So I somehow doubt that a trench will put them off.

[melmerby]

I believe that a footbridge is going to be provided.

I'd like to see the osses using that!

 

Keith

[melmerby]

I don't think that the fact that you are doing something that makes the use of a public right of way (in this case I think it was a bridleway) unsafe, makes blocking the right of way without due process any less illegal.

 

More likely you should alter your activities so as to reduce to acceptable levels or remove the risk to the public using that right of way.

I was thinking more that the crossing point was found to be dangerous so immediate action needed to be taken to safeguard the public, then due process can be carried out.

If nothing was done and somebody was injured then NR would be liable.

 

Keith

[caradoc]

Network Rail has (or at least had when I worked there) a fully staffed and qualified legal department, so I would be very surprised if they closed a public right of way (the exact type of which we don't yet know) without being sure of their ground.

[Budgie]

I'd like to see the osses using that!

 

Keith

I thought modern footbridges had inclines for wheelchairs, etc., as well as stairs for able-bodied persons. Perhaps the osses can use the inclines.

[Trog]

I was thinking more that the crossing point was found to be dangerous so immediate action needed to be taken to safeguard the public, then due process can be carried out.

If nothing was done and somebody was injured then NR would be liable.

 

Keith

 

The legal reaction would have been to do things to make using the crossing safer such as cutting back lineside bushes, manning the crossing or applying a speed restriction so sighting times were improved.

 

By blocking a public right of way without due process NR breaks the law and also becomes liable, as do the staff who carry out their orders to do so.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Trog

[caradoc]

Trog, are you able to give any more background on this, ie where the crossing is, what type (I presume a footpath crossing ?) and Network Rail's rationale and justification for closing it ?

Thanks.

Edited September 9, 2018 by caradoc

[jim.snowdon]

I'd like to see the osses using that!

 

Keith

Only if it was a bridle way (as against a foot path). Not that we know it was either at the moment.

 

Jim

[martin_wynne]

By blocking a public right of way without due process NR breaks the law and also becomes liable, as do the staff who carry out their orders to do so.

 

Try planting a patch of cabbages across it.   You then have 14 days before you need to reinstate the way through (although users still have the legal right to tramp through them).

 

Martin.

[melmerby]

Only if it was a bridle way (as against a foot path). Not that we know it was either at the moment.

 

Jim

I think you will find it is this:

http://streetmap.co.uk/grid/478750,203552,115

 

https://goo.gl/maps/qeUxdCZhd4S2

 

It is a by-way, bridleway & cycle route NC 57 (From OS)

 

Edit added Streetmap link

Edited September 9, 2018 by melmerby

[PatB]

Network Rail has (or at least had when I worked there) a fully staffed and qualified legal department, so I would be very surprised if they closed a public right of way (the exact type of which we don't yet know) without being sure of their ground.

I dunno. I've worked for a government department (admittedly in another country) that supposedly had such a thing. Their grasp of the legislation relevant to the department's work didn't appear to even extend to the ability to read it, let alone apply it in any kind of logical manner.

[kevinlms]

I dunno. I've worked for a government department (admittedly in another country) that supposedly had such a thing. Their grasp of the legislation relevant to the department's work didn't appear to even extend to the ability to read it, let alone apply it in any kind of logical manner.

Think of the different legal advice given on behalf of politicians, such as dual nationals & other conflicts of interest.

[Wickham Green]

I thought modern footbridges had inclines for wheelchairs, etc., as well as stairs for able-bodied persons. Perhaps the osses can use the inclines.

C'mon, they've all got lifts now, haven't they ? 

[Budgie]

C'mon, they've all got lifts now, haven't they ?

How many people crossing the railway does it need to justify installing lifts? What do people do when one of the lifts breaks down?

[martin_wynne]

C'mon, they've all got lifts now, haven't they ? 

 

Hi Wickham Green,

 

Off-topic, but I noticed your name. I realise you are 15 miles away, but there is an ongoing argument among OpenStreetMap contributors about whether Wickham Market is a village or a town? It has been changed on the map several times. It is today showing as a village, see:

 

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/114148812#map=15/52.1520/1.3670 

 

Last week it was a town. Do you have a view?

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[EddieB]

Hi Wickham Green,

 

Off-topic, but I noticed your name. I realise you are 15 miles away, but there is an ongoing argument among OpenStreetMap contributors about whether Wickham Market is a village or a town? It has been changed on the map several times. It is today showing as a village, see:

 

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/114148812#map=15/52.1520/1.3670 

 

Last week it was a town. Do you have a view?

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

It's a suburb of Campsea Ashe - where the station (formerly the junction for Framlingham) is located.

 

If Martin is "West of the Severn", but claims to be "15 miles away", I think there may be a faulty SatNav!

 

(Now completely off-topic).

[martin_wynne]

If Martin is "West of the Severn", but claims to be "15 miles away", I think there may be a faulty SatNav!

 

Not me. Wickham Green is 15 miles from Wickham Market, according to the proverbial flying crow.

 

Martin.

[phil-b259]

The legal reaction would have been to do things to make using the crossing safer such as cutting back lineside bushes, manning the crossing or applying a speed restriction so sighting times were improved.

 

By blocking a public right of way without due process NR breaks the law and also becomes liable, as do the staff who carry out their orders to do so.

 

If safety is compromised then NR do have the powers to temporarily close any level crossing until the situation can be resolved. This is no different to situations like a council having to shut a bridge due to structural issues or a road be closed due to subsidence, or an unsafe 3rd party structure , etc.

 

If the closure has to satay in place for an extended duration then NR will be expected to pay for alternative arrangements - say pay for a new path linking the closed crossing to another nearby one, or in extreme cases providing a taxi to take the user from one side to another if the diversion is a long one.

 

However such closure powers do not mean the situation can continue indefinitely and NR will be expected to put in places measures to reopen the crossing as soon as it practical. If it wants to make the closure permanent then it will have to go through due process and may well have to reopen the crossing in the interim once subsensible safety mitigations (e.g. imposing a temporary speed restriction) have been applied.

[Colin_McLeod]

How many people crossing the railway does it need to justify installing lifts? What do people do when one of the lifts breaks down?

Use the other one!

 

Hat, coat, ducks under the barrier and gone.

[Wickham Green]

Not me. Wickham Green is 15 miles from Wickham Market, according to the proverbial flying crow.

 

Martin.

The hamlet of Wickham Green no longer exists, I'm afraid : it was obliterated when the W.W.& H.R. was built in 1880/1 ........................................ sorry, your crow has a little further to fly ............

[martin_wynne]

The hamlet of Wickham Green no longer exists, I'm afraid : it was obliterated when the W.W.& H.R. was built in 1880/1

 

Do the OS know about this? If you search for Wickham Green on their web site, you get:

 

 https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/52.28123,1.06783,17

 

 

About 15 miles north-west of Wickham Market.

 

Martin.

Edited September 11, 2018 by martin_wynne