CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

“petition calling on Network Rail to unlock Dalwhinnie level crossing”

(30 posts)
  • Started 2 years ago by chdot
  • Latest reply from Murun Buchstansangur

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

  2. gembo
    Member

    Does seem mental. I mean they extended the car park at the level crossing as people were using the existing one. The train drivers wave at you etc.

    I understand Uli the Land owner has the keys.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  3. SRD
    Moderator

    signed yesterday; really baffled as to how they can block core paths? canals and railways seem to be laws unto themselves. is this the remnants of victorian law?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  4. gembo
    Member

    Perhaps have been some near misses on the crossing! No idea? Or Uli worked an angle to stop people cycling through his estate?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  5. Morningsider
    Member

    @SRD - best to imagine level crossing law as a giant legislative Jenga, with the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 right at the bottom.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  6. chdot
    Admin

    “railways seem to be laws unto themselves“

    Yes.

    (Legally)

    Posted 2 years ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    “railways seem to be laws unto themselves“

    Yes.

    (Legally)

    Posted 2 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    From someone ’on the case’ -

    Landowner is as annoyed as others, though at least has a key. There was no consultation with estate either. Also it’s not actually a core path - that stops on either side of the line, though the 2013 Scottish Law Commission report into level crossings legislation said core paths should be allowed to be designated across - recommendations not taken up by government yet. We think one issue is new Azuma train horns aren’t loud enough! It has caused a crossing in England to be closed!

    .”

    Posted 2 years ago #
  9. SRD
    Moderator

    Interesting. i had noted the reference to the core paths as being on either side. i guess that explains that.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  10. SRD
    Moderator

    Friend of mine is cycling north from Edinburgh off-road.

    Yesterday between Nethy Bridge and Inverness had to backtrack because of a 'tall locked gate' he couldn't get through.

    is this legal, unless it was close to a private house?

    in a forest, so not crops.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  11. MediumDave
    Member

    We were there on the 31st July and clambered over the crossing while saying some choice things about Network Rail. Ben Alder estates staff also used the crossing shortly after we started walking towards Loch Ericht from the crossing. They weren't happy about it either (or may have just been dour).

    The "silent train" (if that is the justification) is mince. The trains (of all types) go slowly along there anyway making a loud grinding noise. You'd really have to try to get hit.

    The diversion route is fine for bikes but impractical for walkers due to the distance from the station and then the track past Loch Ericht. Plenty of MTBers going in and out that way.

    We did come back that way (as we had time to kill before our booking at the Lodge Bar) and it's a nice enough route if you want to go straight to the heart of the village.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  12. ejstubbs
    Member

    @MediumDave: The diversion route is fine for bikes but impractical for walkers due to the distance from the station

    The signage I've seen that Network Rail have put up on the crossing gates says the underpass is "one mile south of the crossing". That's not true. It's about 0.5km due south, but it is about a mile by road (the route takes you around three and a half sides of a rectangle, which cannot ever be popular with walkers). A compromise could perhaps be reached if a direct path could be provided alongside the railway (but not on railway land) to shorten the diversion.

    Another option to placate walkers might be to provide access from the northbound (west) platform at the station, via a new short path to the west of the railway to access the Ben Alder track. That wouldn't be much help for cyclists but, as you point out, the underpass route is less of an issue if you have wheels under you. However, given that Network Rail seem almost to want to pretend that that footbridge doesn't exist (having apparently steadfastly failed to take any kind of remedial action in response to repeated complaints over many years about the deteriorating state of the footbridge) I wouldn't hold out too much hope of that particular rational solution being adopted.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  13. crowriver
    Member

    @ejstubbs, "The station is managed by Abellio ScotRail "

    From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalwhinnie_railway_station

    Hence, ultimately by Scottish ministers currently.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  14. ejstubbs
    Member

    @crowriver: Fair point, and that might well apply to the footbridge - in which case Network Rail's lack of action on that matter would seem to be even less helpful, if all they had to do was say "nothing to do with us mate, talk to Abellio".

    I'm 99.99% certain that it wouldn't apply to the permanent way - which would include the crossing, and which Network Rail clearly regard as being their responsibility since they closed it.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  15. chdot
    Admin

    ‘Sensible’ option is a phone to nearest signal centre(?)

    Posted 2 years ago #
  16. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    There already are phones on both sides of the level crossing in question, although given Network Rail’s professed position, I imagine they are only intended to be used if ‘authorised users’ are taking a long or abnormal load across the line.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  17. ejstubbs
    Member

    @MediumDave: Google Streetview shows the pedestrian gates at the crossing to be kissing gates - albeit the latest photo is dated 2014. Is that still the case? If so, I can imagine that being a reason why folks on bikes - especially bikes laden with walking and camping/bothying gear - might prefer the underpass.

    (It's so long since I went that way - with bike - that I honestly can't remember any details of what the crossing was like.)

    There is a wider issue here, which is that Network Rail is basically anti the access rights afforded by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003* and would like to believe that members of the public making use of private level crossings are committing the criminal offence of trespass on the railway (maximum penalty currently £1,000 IIRC). Since the act was passed they've been round a put up "Authorised users only" signs on the crossing gates to reinforce that view. The British Transport Police, however, have publicly stated that as far as they're concerned members of the public are free to use the pedestrian gates at private crossings to exercise their access rights. If NR gets away with closing Dalwhinnie crossing in this unilateral, peremptory fashion then they may well regard that as giving them the green light to do the same at a lot of the other private level crossings they'd rather not have too many people using, such as Balsporran a few miles south of Dalwhinnie which is basically the only way for walkers to access the hills west of Drumochter.

    * NR's contributions during the drafting of the bill were so unhelpful that the act actually ended up making no revelant reference to railways at all.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  18. steveo
    Member

    We think one issue is new Azuma train horns aren’t loud enough!

    Does no one read/write check specifications when they order stuff.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  19. MediumDave
    Member

    @ejstubbs The kissing gates appear to have been replaced with latched pedestrian gates so it would be easy to get a loaded tourer through. It would also be easy to open the large farm-style gate for vehicular crossing if they weren't locked shut.
    You can see the current setup on the Ramblers petition:

    https://e-activist.com/page/88022/petition/1

    Both gates are chained, padlocked and covered in wire mesh to make climbing difficult. We rolled over the top in a few seconds. A nice heavy pack helps with that...

    Posted 2 years ago #
  20. ejstubbs
    Member

    @chdot: We think one issue is new Azuma train horns aren’t loud enough! It has caused a crossing in England to be closed!

    It seems that the issue with the Hitachi Class 800 train horns isn't that they aren't loud enough, but that the loud ones (they have two, so that they can give a gentle 'toot' where that would be more appropriate) have developed a nasty habit of failing.

    The crossing at Cononley in North Yorkshire may the one that your source was referring to. It's discussed on the RailUK forum here (which is where the above information about the Class 800 horns comes from).

    Note this statement in post #5 of that thread:

    "Ben Alder user worked level crossing near Dalwhinnie has been manned by an attendant for the passage of the Up and Down Highland Cheiftain daily since it went over to Azuma operation for the same reason. If the attendant isn’t on duty the train has to be cautioned."

    ("Cautioned" means the driver has to slow down to a speed at which the train could be stopped if an obstruction were to appear on the line ahead - and obviously that's going depend partly on how far ahead the view of the line is clear. This is as opposed to normal running, when the assumption is that if the signal is green then the line is clear.) That post is dated 24th June this year. Looks rather like NR got fed up with having to shoulder the cost of sending someone to Dalwhinnie twice a day.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  21. Tulyar
    Member

    Using the same system as that for bike hire schemes the gates can be released by a mobile phone network signal, and closure after a release sequence also detected

    A 'dumb phone' with a screen display only when activated could also show messages (ie wait for trains to pass)

    UWC with padlocks requires 5 trips across the live railway for every use, UWC with 'auto' unlock and self closing gates, requires only 3 crossings (or 2 if with a second person) and the gates can be closed remotely if left open. The close & lock would be delivered by a phone app and the authorised users would be identified by their devices using the app, so that each use of the crossing would be logged and timestamped

    As with the bike hire - a system first used in 2004 - the lock release system is stand alone power drawn only when called to 'unlock' the latch and thus easy to power by solar panel, and control by a radio/mobile/'local' bluetooth signal. The latch release would be by stored mechanical energy (a system proven by over 30 years of use on door entry systems), so that in the event of a problem, or being stuck 'live side' the locks can be released mechanically by a direct-acting push button

    I identified this as an option for all remote level crossings when I saw it, and it has been available for around 20 years as a security system for locking down boxes delivered to premises when no one was present to receive the delivery (it could also be used to lock bikes with an electronic system and a cable that set off an alarm when cut - another wee project on the stocks)

    It was perhaps 20 years ago also that Walnut Grove between Perth and Errol was also summarily closed against great protest, scuppering the options for delivering a riverside route between Perth and Errol/Dundee (the railway sits hard against the Tay for some of the distance West of Invergowrie presenting a small challenge for path creation - ie an added berm is required on the railway embankment)

    PS has anyone got clear photos of the culvert immediately 'North' of the crossing - ideally with 'scaling'detail

    Also worth an FoI on the station footbridge requesting OPAS (Network Rail) records of the 5-yearly inspections and assessment of life remaining in servicable condition - ask for previous 20 years
    And request SQUIRE reports (Transport Scotland?) for Dalwhinnie Station over 10 years

    Posted 2 years ago #
  22. fimm
    Member

    I think part of the issue is not just this particular crossing but the precedent that it sets that Network Rail can close crossings like this: while there is an alternative here there may not be an alternative at another crossing somewhere else.

    Tulyar I cannot work out where this "culvert north of the crossing" is.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  23. Tulyar
    Member

    There is an uphill drainage ditch on the road and corresponding 'evidence' of the water flow getting under the railway, and Ben Alder Road. If this gives concern the railway may look at upgrading it, although pictures suggest it may be well silted up

    On reflection though, the spending to enlarge the car park at the crossing was (to put it politely) ill advised, when there is an underbridge that gets you to the dam, and thence the same road, under 300 metres from a 24 hour services with secure car parking, far more convenient for walkers coming by car, or on the Citylink coach (stops at the road-end on the A9). Only those arriving by train have a longer walk

    Posted 2 years ago #
  24. MediumDave
    Member

    There's a generalised moistness around that carpark. Possibly the culvert referred is now a field drain after Ben Alder Estates spread multiple tonnes of type 1 over the area.

    Whether it is or not I'd much rather comfortably walk across the railway line than worm my way through a pipe or walk over a mile out of my way. There's multiple options for a decent solution here (including but not limited to "Network Rail to stop being <rule 2>s")

    Posted 2 years ago #
  25. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    No change, just a self-serving, very late 'justification'

    https://scotlandsrailway.com/news/railway-level-crossing-closure-at-dalwhinnie

    Posted 1 year ago #
  26. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Scotways response to it - some here may be able to help

    https://scotways.com/dalwhinnie/

    "ScotWays heard of the imminent closure of the level crossing shortly before the gates were locked, so wrote to Network Rail reminding them that the route across it is a recorded public right of way. ScotWays considers that the restriction to the use of the level crossing by the general public is an unauthorised obstruction of the public’s right, so strongly objects to its closure. Network Rail disagrees with ScotWays’ position, insisting instead that the level crossing is private only."

    "ScotWays is gathering additional evidence of public use of long-distance through routes west of Dalwhinnie – we’d welcome your help with this."

    Posted 1 year ago #
  27. acsimpson
    Member

    They are almost certainly only happy to work with others to put in a bridge if they are paid a ransom. See the bridge at Edinburgh gateway as an example.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  28. SRD
    Moderator

    reading through the statement and Q&A, am struck by two things

    1. they suggest that people are now taking longer to cross. did they just mis-estimate how long it takes people? or have we all gotten slower?

    2. What is a 'reactive pet'? as in "Q: Visitors with reactive pets are impacted by this and have cancelled holidays because of this closure. What are you going to do about it?"

    Posted 1 year ago #
  29. MediumDave
    Member

    What a torturous way of saying "we know best plz go away".

    They may indeed know best about certain operational aspects of the railway, but that's hardly the only consideration here. And if they think there's no evidence of long-term use of that route (hence not a public right of way), they are on crack. There's good evidence of use for 10 years+ just on the interwebs:

    http://www.yorkmc.org.uk/archive/reports/ben_alder/
    https://ness64.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/along-loch-ericht-to-ben-alder-cottage/

    Can they simply not move the whistle boards to allow for longer warning times if they feel that's necessary?

    Or as ejstubbs suggested, for walkers at the station, allowing access to the Ben Alder Road and Loch Ericht from the platform on that side would sort it, and provide quicker access to the station to boot. I'm sure Ben Alder estates would be happy for them to add a gate and gravel path up the side of the railway. After all they'll have to keep that bridge (or do "something") if they want to keep that platform in use.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  30. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    @SRD on 2) I think there is such a thing as in pets that overreact to stimuli but it seems a bit niche for Network Rail, or indeed Dalwhinnie. I'll go with Occam's Razor and posit it's a typo of 'active pet'

    on 1), no idea, depends how it's measured (gate opening, closing, etc). If it took a person 30 seconds to cross the actual danger zone of the 2 tracks, then an unsignalled level crossing is not a good place for that person to be.

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin