Network Rail remove a foot bridge do there have to replace it's Now been Repaired'

[caradoc]

Given that, as stated, there is a road bridge accessible to all not far away, could the expense of replacing this bridge really be justified ? Especially if a huge new structure with ramped access was required (I was under the impression that this only had to provided if such a crossing was already accessible to all ?)

[Luke Piewalker]

http://www.rebridgethegap.org.uk/Re-Bridge_the_Gap/The_Footbridge_Today.html

 

Based on what happened at Waverley, I wouldn't hold my breath in anticipation...

 

 

[caradoc]

17 minutes ago, Luke Piewalker said:

http://www.rebridgethegap.org.uk/Re-Bridge_the_Gap/The_Footbridge_Today.html

 

Based on what happened at Waverley, I wouldn't hold my breath in anticipation...

 

 

 

The question has to be asked here too; Why replace the footbridge (especially after more than 60 years out of use !) given that an alternative route exists nearby over the North Bridge, and the regular issue there of people jumping/falling and crashing through the glass onto the track or platform has been eliminated by strengthening the station roof ?

 

[mozzer models]

1 minute ago, caradoc said:

 

The question has to be asked here too; Why replace the footbridge (especially after more than 60 years out of use !) given that an alternative route exists nearby over the North Bridge, and the regular issue there of people jumping/falling and crashing through the glass onto the track or platform has been eliminated by strengthening the station roof ?

 

Its not out of use its just not used to access a railway station it is used to get to a park

 

[Captain Kernow]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

Given that, as stated, there is a road bridge accessible to all not far away, could the expense of replacing this bridge really be justified ? Especially if a huge new structure with ramped access was required (I was under the impression that this only had to provided if such a crossing was already accessible to all ?)

This is why I think this would have to be some kind of 'community project', with the local community finding the funding to either repair the bridge or replace with a like-for-like (agree that a ramped replacement would be too expensive and I suspect that the local community wouldn't want such an eyesore in their midst). Whether there are any possible sources of funding, I don't know, but it would be incumbent on the local community to investigate further - assuming NR really is planning on closing it permanently - have we yet heard anything directly from the horse's mouth?

 

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

 

Well, I hope they are able to do some kind of a repair, as it's a very attractive footbridge. Don't expect any replacement to look anything remotely like that, though, as a new one would probably have to have wheelchair ramps etc.

 

The footpath sign indicates some kind of local authority recognition of it's status.

 

Your local MP might also wish to get involved, also Welsh Assembly representative. The more NR get complaints from 'important people', the more likely they are to take notice and do something. When I was working, nothing galvanised the PR people like a complaint from an MP or similar.

 

 

10 hours ago, Zomboid said:

 

Not sure that means a lot, if the bridge is not a public right of way then the fact that the LA would like it to be isn't really the point.

 

If I've identifed it right on the map, then the road bridge is all of 125m away, so the detour if it were just taken away would add a maximum of 250m to journeys which presently use it.

 

On that basis, I'm not sure you've got much chance of a reinstatement. Frankly I don't think it would be a good use of railway (public) funds to put it back unless it's legally necessary. If the local council want to buy a replacement themselves then that's another issue.

Hi Brian,

 

The old LSWR station footbridge at Honiton was replaced a few years back (instability in the foundations, which also did for the station building forty-odd years before) and a number of interesting things came up.

 

All new footbridges seem to have a "design life" of forty years (roughly a quarter of how long the old one lasted) and have to be built with clearance for Berne loading gauge and 25kv electrification. Call me cynical, but the possibility of Salisbury-Exeter getting electrified before the bridge is due for replacement is well on the unlikely side of laughable. The extra half-dozen steps do give the regulars a bit more exercise though.

 

Ours didn't need wheelchair access as that is provided by ramped access from the car parks on both sides of the line but if it had to be incorporated it increases the costs massively. Not only a much bigger structure but the enlarged footprint needs foundations where there previously won't have been any.

 

Given the stated proximity of the alternative road bridge, which is presumably how anyone in a wheelchair has been getting to the park up to now, I'd think that a new bridge (with or without such provision) is unlikely.

 

I'd suggest you get your councillor to press for repairs to the existing bridge rather than anything more grandiose. It may just be that NR have made their proposal in part to gauge how much the bridge actually gets used by local community. If nobody raises a stink, they'll assume nobody is bothered.

 

John

Edited July 10, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[TheSignalEngineer]

30 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

It may just be that NR have made their proposal in part to gauge how much the bridge actually gets used by local community. If nobody raises a stink, they'll assume nobody is bothered.

 

We used a similar tactic some years ago on Accommodation Crossings. In many cases the land either side if the railway had changed hands over the years, houses had been built on one side etc. There were some where the track had been relaid and the crossing surface not reinstated.  We put a cable tie with a label giving the contact address of the Divisional Manager's Operating Superintendent round the gate and post. If the tie was still there and there had been no contact when the next inspection was due, steps were taken to officially abolish the crossing.

Edited July 10, 2019 by TheSignalEngineer

[mozzer models]

I was asking As my  councillor posted about the closer of the bridge on facebook & am trying to get info that may help him

 

[ColinK]

Interesting discussion. Near whereI live there is a level crossing and an adjacent footbridge over the WCML.  The footbridge is clearly in poor condition. So is there a risk of the footbridge simply being removed?

[Captain Kernow]

In 'The Railways of South Wales - the Valleys' by Michael Hale, there is a photo of Seven Sisters station, with a footbridge over the access line to the yard and colliery behind the station. Would this footpath have been linked to that over the former station footbridge? If so, where did/does it go and could it be significant in your attempts to retain the remaining bridge?

 

[Zomboid]

50 minutes ago, ColinK said:

Interesting discussion. Near whereI live there is a level crossing and an adjacent footbridge over the WCML.  The footbridge is clearly in poor condition. So is there a risk of the footbridge simply being removed?

Who knows - I'm merely speculating, but effectively replacing a bridge with a level crossing would be a clear reduction in safety so I'd be surprised in that instance if the bridge went and wasn't replaced. The WCML is a different proposition to a few trains a week branch line, too.

 

If (like in this case) there is another perfectly good bridge less than 2 minutes walk away then it might be a different matter, but the existence of the level crossing would still probably drive a need to replace it.

[mozzer models]

34 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

In 'The Railways of South Wales - the Valleys' by Michael Hale, there is a photo of Seven Sisters station, with a footbridge over the access line to the yard and colliery behind the station. Would this footpath have been linked to that over the former station footbridge? If so, where did/does it go and could it be significant in your attempts to retain the remaining bridge?

 

which vol is that tim ??

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Captain Kernow said:

In 'The Railways of South Wales - the Valleys' by Michael Hale, there is a photo of Seven Sisters station, with a footbridge over the access line to the yard and colliery behind the station. Would this footpath have been linked to that over the former station footbridge? If so, where did/does it go and could it be significant in your attempts to retain the remaining bridge?

 

That's interesting as there is no bridge or path there in earlier pictures of the station (including a picture which includes the second station building, i.e, the brick built station building),  The only link between the two bridges for pedestrians would have been along the station platform which makes me wonder if the second bridge (the one at the Neath end) was added to in order to create create an official access to the station from that side of the railway as there was a footpath through the grass on that side which went appeared to go down onto the colliery inlet so was perhaps used to get to the station?

 

Delving a bit further round the net another picture I have found suggests that the path which led to that footbridge came from an entrance immediately adjacent to the road overbridge

Edited July 10, 2019 by The Stationmaster
Addition re path from road overbridge

[The Stationmaster]

19 minutes ago, mozzer models said:

which vol is that tim ??

 

Volume 1, Image No. 170

[mozzer models]

16 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Volume 1, Image No. 170

just ordered a copy

 

[caradoc]

18 hours ago, mozzer models said:

Its not out of use its just not used to access a railway station it is used to get to a park

 

 

I was referring to the bridge at Edinburgh Waverley mentioned in the post I quoted, not the one at Seven Sisters.

 

[Caledonian]

Before moving to my current department, I spent many years working in the property department, with the Tyne and Wear Metro and have a lot of experience with railway bridges.

 

Legally speaking, overbridges fall into a couple of different categories.

 

1. First there are accommodation crossings which were created when the land was first acquired for the railway. These provide a legal right for Farmer Giles [or whoever] to cross the railway which divides his or her land. Case law has established that this right dies if the land ownership on one side changes, ie; Farmer Giles' field is bisected by the railway, so he insists on the railway company providing an accommodation crossing. Some years down the line he pops his clogs leaving what is now the East Field to his son and the West Field to his daughter. All very equitable but the two fields are no longer in the same ownership so there is no longer a legal right to enjoy the crossing.

 

2. Then there is the right of way. This is similar because it tends to arise where the railway cuts across an already established right of way and so is compelled to provide a crossing over or under the railway. This can't be extinguished except by agreement, which basically involves sums of money changing hands to persuade the local council to divert the footpath.

 

3. Similarly the Council can approach the railway waving large quantities of negotiable currency and persuade it to allow the Council to build and maintain a footbridge all of its very own. This tends to happen when housing estates or new schools are built on the"wrong" side of the track

 

4. And then there are the railway's own bridges, almost invariably built at stations. As an earlier poster pointed out, no matter how long they are in existence it is not possible to designate these as a right of way, although its not unknown for Councils to acquire a right by agreement, using the aforementioned negotiable currency. 

 

Looking at the example in question, unless someone at the Council can wave such an agreement the railway has an absolute right to do what it wants with its own bridge. What can happen [and I'm thinking of a specific example on Tyneside] is that the railway will announce that a particular bridge will need to come down because it has exceeded its design life and is becoming unsafe. However if the Council wants to put its money where its mouth is, the railway will often be amenable to granting an agreement allowing the Council to erect and maintain a shiny new bridge of its very own, per 3. above. And again as somebody pointed out such a bridge would be built to modern standards with access ramps, high and blank parapets and so on. Engineers can be awkward sods but they aren't stupid [generally] and if they say a bridge is unsafe, its unsafe and not to be bodged together with Duck tape and superglue

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Caledonian
spelling,

[Steamport Southport]

But all you need is a bit of local support, a few pictures of sad toddlers in the local press and someone at Network Rail thinking "That's a good way to get a bit of positive publicity".

 

Most large organisations have money set aside for situations like this. Network Rail certainly does. You just want them spending that money on your project not someone else's.

 

If you can get support from the local council, Welsh Assembly, lottery, local press, local charities, etc. then money really isn't an issue.

 

 

 

Jason

[Wheatley]

Looking at the 1878 map on oldmaps.co.uk, and with my one-time landscape archaeologists hat on, I'd say the original path linking two small settlements predates the railway. It may well therefore be a public right of way provided it already was in 1949. If it wasn't by then then it can't be now as the 1949 BTC act is the one which prohibits new RoW on railway land. If it is then it can be diverted, and you will struggle to show that diverting it 200 yds along paved roads is unreasonable.  

Edited July 12, 2019 by Wheatley

[Dunsignalling]

On ‎10‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 10:54, DavidCBroad said:

Ought to try to get it listed as a "Listed Building"    NR can temporarily close it for a short time for repairs, we have a temporarily closed footpath closed in 1940 and still not re opened. Or NR can get the right of way closed permanently through legislation which I think is Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. NR can do what the hell they want actually because none of us have the cash to launch an effective legal challenge.   I expect if the bridge goes the locals will cut a hole the fence  to cross the tracks and then the kids will be able to play on the tracks.    Our locals do the same with dual carriageways then moan when one of their number gets killed playing chicken with HGVs

 

Even if the footbridge were to be listed, it would impose no obligation on the part of NR to keep it usable, or even to stop it falling down (though they are obviously not going to let that happen in this case, as it crosses an operational railway).

 

Just as with a house, castle or whatever, being listed (or even having Scheduled Ancient Monument status) only prevents something being altered inappropriately, it confers no guarantee of survival, let alone restoration to a functional state.

 

John

 

 

Edited July 12, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Even if the footbridge were to be listed, it would impose no obligation on the part of NR to keep it usable, or even to stop it falling down (though they are obviously not going to let that happen in this case, as it crosses an operational railway).

 

Just as with a house, castle or whatever, being listed (or even having Scheduled Ancient Monument status) only prevents something being altered inappropriately, it confers no guarantee of survival, let alone restoration to a functional state.

 

John

 

 

Indeed

 

Folk should take note of how 'listing a building / structure can actually have an adverse effect when it comes to 'saving' something.

 

Listing something DOES NOT prevent it being demolished if it becomes unsafe and presents a danger to members of the public (and a bridge which might fall / cause a use to fall onto an operational railway would definitely count as representing a 'danger to the public').

Edited July 12, 2019 by phil-b259

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Wheatley said:

Looking at the 1878 map on oldmaps.co.uk, and with my one-time landscape archaeologists hat on, I'd say the original path linking two small settlements predates the railway. It may well therefore be a public right of way provided it already was in 1949. If it wasn't by then then it can't be now as the 1949 BTC act is the one which prohibits new RoW on railway land. If it is then it can be diverted, and you will struggle to show that diverting it 200 yds along paved roads is unreasonable.  

Interestingly an 1876 map shows a level crossing at that end of the station, together with the original connection to the colliery also at that end.  Later maps show the road bridge which was presumably, as the village expanded, the replacement for the level crossing thus obviating the need for any sort of means of crossing the railway at that point.

[Bernard Lamb]

Her we have a Grade 11 listed barn.

Just to prove the point re listing not giving protection.

Not a case of neglect by the owner.

The collapse was the result of the Buncefield explosion.

The front of the, also listed, farm house took a bit if a battering and needed new windows and the right hand corner repairing.

The barn was in such a state that the remains have been left where they finished up.

There was a mini inside at the time and the last time I was there in winter it could still be seen.

Bernard

[Captain Kernow]

Brian - any news on this one, please?

 

[mozzer models]

3 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Brian - any news on this one, please?

 

Hi Tim

it took NR 2 week to fenice the footbridge off & is still in place 

the counselor is still looking in to whats going to happen