East Coast Mainline Blockade for Werrington Junction diveunder

[John Tomlinson]

2 hours ago, Donington Road said:

 

Glad to see you walking down there John, the more people do that then it will flatten the rough ground out to make it easier walking for us oldies.👍

If you thought Cock Lane bridge is a bit uninviting then keep away from Walton footbridge, you need a stab vest and a personal body guard if you go there.😟

It is quite amazing the different type of clientel that pass through those five bridges around Werrington Junction (Walton, Cock Lane, Hurn Road, Lincoln Road and Foxcovert Road).

The busiest time for the dive under use at the moment is mornings and afternoons.  There is some action of the dive under on my lastest video if you want to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5__Kp_tt5HI

 

 

Excellent video, very crisp and professional, thanks for posting.

 

I'm not so young myself, havng been in receipt of the Old Age Pension for  little while now!

 

On occasion I've looked at the Walton footbridge and seen the locals, as you say best avoided.

 

John.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Donington Road said:

 

Glad to see you walking down there John, the more people do that then it will flatten the rough ground out to make it easier walking for us oldies.👍

If you thought Cock Lane bridge is a bit uninviting then keep away from Walton footbridge, you need a stab vest and a personal body guard if you go there.😟

It is quite amazing the different type of clientel that pass through those five bridges around Werrington Junction (Walton, Cock Lane, Hurn Road, Lincoln Road and Foxcovert Road).

The busiest time for the dive under use at the moment is mornings and afternoons.  There is some action of the dive under on my lastest video if you want to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5__Kp_tt5HI

 

Early mornings at that

On Friday there were 6 before 0800, all Northbound.

[Crun]

Sunday 1st May

 

Looks like they've gone for railings instead of flat panels:

 

 

Edited May 1, 2022 by Crun

[Crun]

A flat panel here though:

Edited May 1, 2022 by Crun

[Crun]

Views from a distance of the railing panels:

 

Edited May 1, 2022 by Crun

[Donington Road]

3 hours ago, Crun said:

Sunday 1st May

 

Looks like they've gone for railings instead of flat panels:

 

 

 

That is a surprise considering there are lugs on the uprights and top and bottom rails ready to accept panels.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Donington Road

[phil-b259]

On 01/05/2022 at 19:56, Donington Road said:

 

That is a surprise considering there are lugs on the uprights and top and bottom rails ready to accept panels.

 

Either its a case of using existing designs / stock rather than going to the expense of developing a new design or there is an element of 'future proofing' going on just in case it proves the use of railings does not adequately protect the railway from vandals etc.

[melmerby]

59 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Either its a case of using existing designs / stock rather than going to the expense of developing a new design or there is an element of 'future proofing' going on just in case it proves the use of railings does not adequately protect the railway from vandals etc.

If too many people are seen to be photographing trains, the panels will go up!🙂

[PenrithBeacon]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

If too many people are seen to be photographing trains, the panels will go up!🙂

There is also the need to protect the public. If the bridge is enclosed it will be an invitation to the unpleasant to commit horrors.

I doubt if the bridge will be used after dark. 

[Richard E]

35 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There is also the need to protect the public. If the bridge is enclosed it will be an invitation to the unpleasant to commit horrors.

I doubt if the bridge will be used after dark. 

There has been lobbying for lighting but I very much doubt it will happen. It's not a place I would choose to be after dark although it is better than some other footbridges as already discussed.

[Donington Road]

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Either its a case of using existing designs / stock rather than going to the expense of developing a new design or there is an element of 'future proofing' going on just in case it proves the use of railings does not adequately protect the railway from vandals etc.

 

The lugs were welded in situ and the initial concept was for plates to be installed so that the public could not interfere with the trains that pass in very close proximity on the Down Stamford line.  Railings will not stop that, so it is probably is an experiment to see how things develop.

 

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

If too many people are seen to be photographing trains, the panels will go up!🙂

 

It is probably Screwfix sponsoring the use of panels so they get more photographers buying even larger stepladders.

 

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There is also the need to protect the public. If the bridge is enclosed it will be an invitation to the unpleasant to commit horrors.

I doubt if the bridge will be used after dark. 

 

Solid panels were supposed to prevent the brainless from poking things at the OHE and frazzling them.

 

1 hour ago, Richard E said:

There has been lobbying for lighting but I very much doubt it will happen. It's not a place I would choose to be after dark although it is better than some other footbridges as already discussed.

 

Are you saying I might scare you doing my nocturnal videoing? 😀

It is a very busy bridge early mornings and early evening, ok in the summer but it really does need lighting in the winter months.

[Richard E]

1 hour ago, Donington Road said:

Are you saying I might scare you doing my nocturnal videoing? 😀

It is a very busy bridge early mornings and early evening, ok in the summer but it really does need lighting in the winter months.

 

Depends what you are videoing ... !!!

[corneliuslundie]

I really worry that we have got to the stage where it has to be assumed that human beings do not have brains and can take no responsibility for their actions. Originally fences were for keeping stock off the lines, not people. I agree that 25 kV overhead lines are dangerous but a supposedly intelligent gentleman found out that steam trains are dangerous too - at the opening of a certain railway. That didn't mean that the public immediately had to be protected from their own stupidity.

It is not just the unsightliness, but also the initial and maintenance cost, which is then paid for by the passengers. Now it seems that if a vandal tears down a railway fence and then gets killed it is the railway's fault.

And they are very unsightly, especially in the quantities necessary for a wheelchair friendly bridge.

Rant over.

And more seriously, if the design to make the bridge vandal proof also makes it dangerous to use because it is so enclosed then no-one has won except the manufacturer.

Jonathan

 

[John Tomlinson]

16 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I really worry that we have got to the stage where it has to be assumed that human beings do not have brains and can take no responsibility for their actions. Originally fences were for keeping stock off the lines, not people. I agree that 25 kV overhead lines are dangerous but a supposedly intelligent gentleman found out that steam trains are dangerous too - at the opening of a certain railway. That didn't mean that the public immediately had to be protected from their own stupidity.

It is not just the unsightliness, but also the initial and maintenance cost, which is then paid for by the passengers. Now it seems that if a vandal tears down a railway fence and then gets killed it is the railway's fault.

And they are very unsightly, especially in the quantities necessary for a wheelchair friendly bridge.

Rant over.

And more seriously, if the design to make the bridge vandal proof also makes it dangerous to use because it is so enclosed then no-one has won except the manufacturer.

Jonathan

 

 

Agree 110% with this. The cost of this stuff must be astronomic, plus the maintenance. Ditto Palisade fencing.

 

Funnily enough most of this nonsense seems only to happen in the UK, and not on the Continent, where you have unfenced footpaths next to lines. Strangely, there aren't mangled bodies everywhere!

 

John.

[The Stationmaster]

On 03/05/2022 at 17:56, corneliuslundie said:

I really worry that we have got to the stage where it has to be assumed that human beings do not have brains and can take no responsibility for their actions. Originally fences were for keeping stock off the lines, not people. I agree that 25 kV overhead lines are dangerous but a supposedly intelligent gentleman found out that steam trains are dangerous too - at the opening of a certain railway. That didn't mean that the public immediately had to be protected from their own stupidity.

It is not just the unsightliness, but also the initial and maintenance cost, which is then paid for by the passengers. Now it seems that if a vandal tears down a railway fence and then gets killed it is the railway's fault.

And they are very unsightly, especially in the quantities necessary for a wheelchair friendly bridge.

Rant over.

And more seriously, if the design to make the bridge vandal proof also makes it dangerous to use because it is so enclosed then no-one has won except the manufacturer.

Jonathan

 

Sorry but originally fencing of railways arose from complaints and protestations from landowners that if the railway was not fenced anybody could get off a train and trespass on their land adjacent to the railway.  Hence the fact that railway boundary fencing is the railway's responsibility, and expense (!842 Regulation of Railways Act, Section 10), while road boundary fencing is the responsibility of the landowner.

 

The only reason the g fencing is now viewed from the opposite direction and for keeping people off the railway is entirely down to the stupid British public far too many of whom seem to have smaller brains, and much less common sense, than our cats 

[John Tomlinson]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Sorry but originally fencing of railways arose from complaints and protestations from landowners that if the railway was not fenced anybody could get off a train and trespass on their land adjacent to the railway.  Hence the fact that railway boundary fencing is the railway's responsibility, and expense (!842 Regulation of Railways Act, Section 10), while road boundary fencing is the responsibility of the landowner.

 

The only reason the g fencing is now viewed from the opposite direction and for keeping people off the railway is entirely down to the stupid British public far too many of whom seem to have smaller brains, and much less common sense, than our cats 

 

Very fair point. As it's now quite a while since 1842, perhaps it's time someone in Government came up with some new laws. Something on the lines of  "unauthorised persons suffering injury or death on railway property will have no recourse in any law for redress, as the event will be deemed to have arisen entirely due to their own stupidity". Might extend this to a few other areas as well!!

 

John

Edited May 7, 2022 by John Tomlinson

[Mike Storey]

On 04/05/2022 at 11:58, John Tomlinson said:

 

Agree 110% with this. The cost of this stuff must be astronomic, plus the maintenance. Ditto Palisade fencing.

 

Funnily enough most of this nonsense seems only to happen in the UK, and not on the Continent, where you have unfenced footpaths next to lines. Strangely, there aren't mangled bodies everywhere!

 

John.

 

True about cost, and some of it may be over the top in terms of need.

 

But you are wrong about the number of bodies on the Continent. In France, for example, nearly three times more people (non-passengers) are killed on the railway each year in "trespass accidents", at an average of around 55 per year (excluding level crossings and the Paris Metro), compared to around 22 in the UK (varies quite a lot by year, 2020 UK figure was 17 - source NR and Statista.com). Suicide numbers are broadly comparable however, at around 320 France to 270 UK, with both figures rising in recent years. That is despite ALL French LGV lines being completely fenced, and many lines in and onto cities and around "hot spots" now being fenced off. Germany has the highest number of all non-passenger deaths, followed by Poland, but the actual numbers are difficult to separate out from passenger deaths (unless you subscribe to a certain site). The EU are getting pretty steamed up about the rising numbers.

 

So, in the UK, given the actuarial cost of a death is now put at between £1m and £2.5m, the saving of the difference at least, say, £35m per year compares favourably to the annual NR fencing (renewal) costs in the UK of about £15m. (as far as I can tell from the annual accounts - they used to give this figure separately but it is well hidden under Track Renewals - Off Track now).

 

[John Tomlinson]

1 minute ago, Mike Storey said:

 

True about cost, and some of it may be over the top in terms of need.

 

But you are wrong about the number of bodies on the Continent. In France, for example, nearly three times more people (non-passengers) are killed on the railway each year in "trespass accidents", at an average of around 55 per year (excluding level crossings and the Paris Metro), compared to around 22 in the UK (varies quite a lot by year, 2020 UK figure was 17 - source NR and Statista.com). Suicide numbers are broadly comparable however, at around 320 France to 270 UK, with both figures rising in recent years. That is despite ALL French LGV lines being completely fenced, and many lines in and onto cities and around "hot spots" now being fenced off. Germany has the highest number of all non-passenger deaths, followed by Poland, but the actual numbers are difficult to separate out from passenger deaths (unless you subscribe to a certain site). The EU are getting pretty steamed up about the rising numbers.

 

So, in the UK, given the actuarial cost of a death is now put at between £1m and £2.5m, the saving of the difference at least, say, £35m per year compares favourably to the annual NR fencing (renewal) costs in the UK of about £15m. (as far as I can tell from the annual accounts - they used to give this figure separately but it is well hidden under Track Renewals - Off Track now).

 

 

Happy to stand corrected. The 55 per year is still quite tiny compared to deaths from all causes, and even relatively so to the number of suicides. I would imagine it's a lot less than road deaths as well. I do take the point that there is a serious trauma cost to the railwaymen and woman involved, either directly in say driving a train that hits someone, or indeed to those clearing up the mess afterwards.

 

It's interesting that you quote an actuarial cost of £1m - £2.5m per death, presumably the figure used to calculate viability of protection measures whilst assessing risk at a particular place. Would you know if this range is the same as used for road safety measures as well?

 

John.

[woodenhead]

I would imagine mitigation against the risk of accidents is the reasoning behind the additional fencing / panelling.

 

In order to get insurance, companies will be expected to show they have taken appropriate steps to ensure people cannot accidentally come into contact with trains or the OHLE.

 

My own employers have learnt how difficult it is now to insure against risks to both data and life and the amount of effort involved in keeping the insurers (actually a panel of insurers) onside.  As soon as they had got one eye watering insurance cover set up, they had to immediately set about thinking about how they would renew the insurance in 12 months time, what might we do less of, what do we need to do more of and how do we lessen the risk so we can actually get insurance.  Some of our previous insurers would not even cover us any longer or wanted to be further down the claims list so would only pay out in very extreme circumstances.

 

The world of insurance has changed very quickly, I imagine a lot of other companies are now doing things they would not have thought about in the past to ensure they can obtain and retain cover, otherwise they simply cannot trade.

[Mike Storey]

7 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

 

Happy to stand corrected. The 55 per year is still quite tiny compared to deaths from all causes, and even relatively so to the number of suicides. I would imagine it's a lot less than road deaths as well. I do take the point that there is a serious trauma cost to the railwaymen and woman involved, either directly in say driving a train that hits someone, or indeed to those clearing up the mess afterwards.

 

It's interesting that you quote an actuarial cost of £1m - £2.5m per death, presumably the figure used to calculate viability of protection measures whilst assessing risk at a particular place. Would you know if this range is the same as used for road safety measures as well?

 

John.

 

Apart from suicides, it is not a tiny number compared to deaths from all causes on the railways. It is the second largest, and remember this does not include level crossings, for which add another 25-30 or so in France, just a handful in the UK. Suicide hot spots are where the French tend to put up fencing (other than on LGV lines). 

 

However, the actuarial issue in the UK is that, quite often in subsequent Inquiries or Coroner's Inquests, the cause, or incidental cause of death is placed at the hands of the railway (if a gate was left unlocked, or a bit of fencing was not secure, for example). That allows lawyers to come after the railways for compensation. The instructions from the Treasury, to sponsors of works (renewals or enhancements) at BR, then RT then NR, was to use a figure (previously £1m, then raised more recently to £2.5m) as an allowance per death saved by a part or all of the works, whether that be signalling, electrification etc. or indeed fencing. The figure arises from an average used by lawyers employed by HMG to calculate average levels of compensation in such cases (known as the Ogden Tables). The figures are used widely across all forms of state funded infrastructure or measures, but clearly the incidence of blame arises far less on highways.

 

The French, and others, justify the fencing costs as savings against time lost by such incidents, which is what NR do as well, but it is now more serious for EU countries, due to the imposition of penalties against poor performance, which is a relatively recent phenomenon for them. Each death on a railway, whether by suicide or trespass, or by accident, can cause thousands of minutes delay and cancellations.

 

 

 

[Mike Storey]

17 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I would imagine mitigation against the risk of accidents is the reasoning behind the additional fencing / panelling.

 

In order to get insurance, companies will be expected to show they have taken appropriate steps to ensure people cannot accidentally come into contact with trains or the OHLE.

 

My own employers have learnt how difficult it is now to insure against risks to both data and life and the amount of effort involved in keeping the insurers (actually a panel of insurers) onside.  As soon as they had got one eye watering insurance cover set up, they had to immediately set about thinking about how they would renew the insurance in 12 months time, what might we do less of, what do we need to do more of and how do we lessen the risk so we can actually get insurance.  Some of our previous insurers would not even cover us any longer or wanted to be further down the claims list so would only pay out in very extreme circumstances.

 

The world of insurance has changed very quickly, I imagine a lot of other companies are now doing things they would not have thought about in the past to ensure they can obtain and retain cover, otherwise they simply cannot trade.

 

Network Rail self-insures against such incidents. Obtaining commercial insurance for this would be unaffordable.

 

[corneliuslundie]

But this still begs the question.

Should the railway have to insure against the stupidity of the public either by expenditure such as fencing or insurance?

This has come about as part of the "blame game" which also seems to see every railway accident as a crime scene.

It is rather like a burglar breaking and then suing the householder when he falls over the cat.

Jonathan

[melmerby]

24 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

It is rather like a burglar breaking and then suing the householder when he falls over the cat.

Jonathan

Not as ridiculous as it sounds

Very rare but there have been a few cases

 

One in ROI:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/burglar-who-injured-genitals-during-shop-break-in-sues-shopkeeper-a3736971.html

[corneliuslundie]

Anyway, I have led the thread far too far off topic. Let's get back to Werrington.

Jonathan

[woodenhead]

4 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Network Rail self-insures against such incidents. Obtaining commercial insurance for this would be unaffordable.

 

However, this will be underwritten by HM Government as it's paymaster, they will expect it to apply rigorous mitigation against accidents for which it can avoid.