Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[chuffed]

Trainer and I agree to disagree on this. I cannot understand why NR^» (Network Rail - home page) has to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut over the question of a level crossing at Quays Avenue. Anyone with half a brain can see it is the most obvious and cost effective solution. I just think NR should be told, cajoled, emailed and petitioned  time and time and time again , until they get sick of all the aggro, and just go ahead and  build the damn thing. The three existing options on the table for the station are second, third and fourth best respectively.

[Red Squirrel]

Anyone with half a brain can see it is the most obvious and cost effective solution. I just think NR^» (Network Rail - home page) should be told, cajoled, emailed and petitioned  time and time and time again , until they get sick of all the aggro, and just go ahead and  build the damn thing. The three existing options on the table for the station are second, third and fourth best respectively.

It's a political thing. From every viewpoint except politics (and I include 'safety' when I say 'everything') it would be sensible to put in a level crossing... but just imagine the furore if someone then got hit by a train? The ramifications for the people who decided to build it would be severe. If, on the other hand, someone was killed crossing the road to get to the station - well that would be a whole different thing; the death of a person crossing a road is a hundred times less newsworthy than a level crossing death.

[chuffed]

It is highly likely that if someone got hit by a train on aforesaid level crossing, it would be their own fault..as they would be trying to take a short cut, or jump the barriers/lights. As BNM has said 'level crossings are safe unless used in a unsafe manner

[Network SouthEast]

Anyone with half a brain can see it is the most obvious and cost effective solution.

Whilst the capital cost of a level crossing may be favourable compared to a bridge, don't forget to use the other brain half to look at the other costs such as:

* On-going maintenance of the crossing
* Staff to monitor/operate crossing. Even where this can be done within an existing signal box, can the signallers deal with this amongst existing workloads, or are they even the correct level to do this (there are differing 'scales' of signalling responsibility/pressure).
* Cost to local economy through road traffic and pedestrian delays
* Cost to local environment though road traffic noise and pollution
* Death or injury through either misuse, error or failure

[Chris from Nailsea]

As BNM has said 'level crossings are safe unless used in a unsafe manner

Erm ... that was CfN, not BNM. 

[grahame]

I still can't help contrasting the different levels of protection being necessary in Edinburgh on the new (light = tram) rail service opened up Princes Street in the heart of the city a few weeks ago, and in Portishead.  Is the answer in Portishead to use vehicles similar to those in use in Edinburgh 

[trainer]

Is the answer in Portishead to use vehicles similar to those in use in Edinburgh 

That (ie tram/train) would be an ideal solution, but alas not on offer in the foreseeable future.

[TonyK]

As BNM has said 'level crossings are safe unless used in a unsafe manner

Erm ... that was CfN, not BNM. 

BNM also said it, but later.

Is the answer in Portishead to use vehicles similar to those in use in Edinburgh 

That (ie tram/train) would be an ideal solution, but alas not on offer in the foreseeable future.

Tram-train would open up the possibility of a town centre loop, or even a route to Clevedon. It will not be quick in coming, but the trick is to make provision for it now. We're in this mess of having a station out of the centre largely because that wasn't done when Quays Avenue etc was built.

Anyone thought of lowering the road, and having the railway cross by bridge? St Lukes Road in Bedminster is my inspiration.

[Red Squirrel]

Anyone thought of lowering the road, and having the railway cross by bridge? St Lukes Road in Bedminster is my inspiration.

I'm sure we've all found St Luke's Rd a source of inspiration at some time in our lives...

I'm guessing that the cost of digging a cutting and its approaches is probably greater than the cost of embankments for a road overbridge - and the fact that it's all a bit close to sea level probably complicates things too.

[alan_s]

Anyone thought of lowering the road, and having the railway cross by bridge? St Lukes Road in Bedminster is my inspiration.

I'm sure we've all found St Luke's Rd a source of inspiration at some time in our lives...

I'm guessing that the cost of digging a cutting and its approaches is probably greater than the cost of embankments for a road overbridge - and the fact that it's all a bit close to sea level probably complicates things too.

The other thing you could do I guess is raise the railway - there's plenty of straight track to have gentle-ish incline; and then have the whole station elevated like much of the DLR^▸ (Docklands Light Railway) in London ... 

We could then extend and have the station right in the middle of the high street.   

[Chris from Nailsea]

As BNM has said 'level crossings are safe unless used in a unsafe manner

Erm ... that was CfN, not BNM. 

BNM also said it, but later.

Indeed:

One of my fellow moderators, Chris from Nailsea, sums up the issue pretty succinctly in his forum signature:

'Level crossings on the railway network are safe - unless they are used in an unsafe manner.'

[JayMac]

Where others lead... 

[TonyK]

Where others lead... 

A true tribute.

[Chris from Nailsea]

I cannot understand why NR^» (Network Rail - home page) has to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut over the question of a level crossing at Quays Avenue. Anyone with half a brain can see it is the most obvious and cost effective solution. I just think NR should be told, cajoled, emailed and petitioned  time and time and time again, until they get sick of all the aggro, and just go ahead and build the damn thing. The three existing options on the table for the station are second, third and fourth best respectively.

You would need to change the mindset of the Office of Rail Regulation, too - they are directing Network Rail in such matters.

From the website of the Office of Rail Regulation:

Level crossings policy

Our policies and aims on level crossings are set out here. We also explain what we will to do to help ensure the risks from level crossings are properly controlled.

Great Britain's level crossing safety record is among the best in the world, but every incident has the potential for significant human and economic loss. Level crossings are the single biggest source of railway catastrophic risk, but overall the risks are well managed.

We seek to influence dutyholders and others to reduce risk at Britain's level crossings. We do this through a variety of means ranging from advice to formal enforcement action. We check that preventive and protective measures are implemented in accordance with the principles of prevention set out in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

Risk control should, where practicable, be achieved through the removal of level crossings and replacing them with bridges, underpasses or diversions. Where removal is not possible, we aim to ensure that duty holders reduce risk so far as is reasonably practicable and in accordance with the principles of protection.

As the safety regulator for Britain's railways, our role is to provide clear advice and enforce relevant legislation ^ including that which relates to level crossings. We also exercise delegated powers of the Secretary of State in making level crossing orders under the Level Crossings Act 1983.

We believe that it is neither effective nor efficient for only rail companies to be responsible for managing safety at level crossings. Decisions about level crossings should involve rail companies, traffic authorities and other relevant organisations such as planning authorities as early on as possible.

Relevant authorities should recognise the wider benefits that safety improvements at level crossings (for example, replacing them with bridges) can bring about, particularly for road users. If wider benefits can be achieved, the appropriate funding bodies should agree on how the costs of making safety improvements will be met.

We are also committed to helping people understand the importance of the safe use of level crossings.

Our aims

- other than in exceptional circumstances, no new level crossings on any railway therefore creating no new risks; and

- to make level crossing users more aware of what affects safety at level crossings.

What we will do

- we will use current laws on creating and using level crossings to support good practice; and

- we will work closely with Network Rail and other rail companies to help improve safety at level crossings, and be directly involved in working groups and committees where appropriate.

Last updated - 17 April 2014

(My highlighting. CfN.)

[John R]

Other than in exceptional circumstances implies that it is not a total ban. Have NR^» (Network Rail - home page) even asked whether a concession could be made? I bet they haven't.

I'm sure passengers would rather travel at 10mph over the crossing and have a station in the town centre than have to walk.