Dalwhinnie rail crossing petition

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Catriona 14 Aug 2021

Ramblers Scotland have an online petition asking for Network Rail to reopen the recently locked gates over the track to Ben Alder and other lovely places: https://e-activist.com/page/88022/petition/1?locale=en-GB

1
 Trangia 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Signed

 IM 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Signed.

 tehmarks 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Signed.

 Robert Durran 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

I'm not sure I should admit this, but part of me quite likes the idea of climbing over the locked gates rather than being able to open them. 

4
OP Catriona 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

I know what you mean but it’s a bit trickier with a heavy bike.

 tehmarks 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

Looks a bit more straightforward than shortcutting from the Old Bridge Inn to the Aviemore YHA, at least.

Not that anyone would do that either, of course.

 el diablo 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Signed

 Sean Kelly 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Signed!

 Pedro50 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

The only thing that I know about Dalwhinnie is that there's a distillery there so I signed anyway.

 Lankyman 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Walked all the Munros round that way (but never from Dalwhinnie!). I did once have breakfast in the rather shabby coach hotel though. I signed.

 biggianthead 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Where is the crossing. Grid Ref would help.

cheers

 Martin W 14 Aug 2021
In reply to biggianthead:

It's at grid reference NN 633846 at the south end of Dalwhinnie station.  The main problem with locking the crossing closed is that it's where all the books tell you to access the Ben Alder area from the east.  Plus there is space to leave cars there without them being too much in the way.

There is actually an underpass about half a kilometre to the south at grid reference NN 634841 which wouldn't be particularly onerous to reach by bike from the station (the main road through Dalwhinnie isn't all that busy) though it would be more of a trek for walkers.  There's a track that leads north from the underpass, below the Loch Ericht dam, that links up to the main track towards Ben Alder Lodge.  There's also space for a few cars alongside the track that leads to the underpass (which has a barrier to prevent unauthorised use by motor vehicles) though not as much as there is at the station I think.

Another possible alternative for those who arrive at the station, find the crossing locked and don't fancy the hike round to the underpass might be the footbridge over the railway within the station.  I'm not sure whether there's a proper exit from the platform on the west side of the line which could be used to get to the main track westwards - though no doubt the fence could be climbed (which would be less dangerous than climbing the fence to cross the railway, but I believe would strictly be illegal).

Apparently the estate is pretty much as fed up as everyone else is about the crossing closure.  Although they have keys to the vehicle gates, they are not happy that pedestrian access has been withdrawn without them being consulted.

It's rumoured that one reason why Network Rail have suddenly decided that this crossing has to be closed is because the new Class 800 trains that run through there twice a day at a fair lick don't have a sufficiently loud horn to provide adequate warning of their approach.  Apparently another, similar crossing on the East Coast Main Line in Yorkshire has already been closed for this reason.  One might reasonably be disappointed that closing useful crossings to casual users is regarded as a better solution than asking LNER to get Hitachi to make their trains' horns a bit louder...

Post edited at 17:53
1
 biggianthead 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

Thanks for the very detailed reply. It's the crossing that I normally use!

Signed

Cheers

Post edited at 18:34
 Martin W 14 Aug 2021

There was a segment about this issue in Out of Doors on BBC Radio Scotland this morning:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000ys71 (segment starts at 35:30)

Also more discussion on RailUK Forums: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/closure-of-the-level-crossing-between-...

 Robert Durran 14 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Having listened to the BBC link and heard how it affects locals, I've signed it. There are plenty of other places to trespass on the railway.

 biggianthead 15 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

bump

 Martin W 15 Aug 2021

There are a number of interlinked aspects to this issue:

  • Network Rail thinks that private level crossings are for the use of authorised users only (usually the owner or user of the property on the other side of the railway) and that use for other purposes by members of the public is criminal trespass according to existing railway legislation.
  • British Transport Police seem to disagree, having stated publicly that they do not intend to prosecute anyone using such a crossing*.
  • The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 isn't much help in resolving the question.  Apparently Network Rail were obstructive when the bill was being drafted, with the result that the act makes no relevant reference to railways at all.  NR clearly regards this as meaning that existing railway legislation applies.  Other parties disagree.
  • The Dalwhinnie crossing may be on a public right of way (an ancient route called The Thieves Road: http://www.heritagepaths.co.uk/mapsearch.php?path=226#zoom=11.5699999999999...) but this has yet to be confirmed.  If that is the case then Network Rail would have had to follow statutory process in order to close or re-route it.
  • Given the evidence of the historic use of the route, the terms surrounding the provision of a crossing at Dalwhinnie are almost certainly covered in the original act of parliament that allowed the Inverness and Perth Junction Railway to be built.  It appears that no-one has yet examined the provisions in that act, though it's likely Network Rail are aware of it.
  • The local community has recently raised funding for the expansion of the "walkers car park" on the east side of the crossing, and a hostel has been opened nearby to cater for people accessing the Ben Alder estate for outdoor recreation.  The peremptory closure of the pedestrian level crossing has devalued both these investments.

* This is not the same as the issue in Glen Lochy, where baggers starting from the car park at grid reference NN 238278 frequently cross the railway to access Ben Lui and its associated hills (this route is given in both the SMC book and McNeish's, though neither actually mentions crossing the railway - there is a culvert which might be used by the more intrepid/law abiding but I doubt anyone does).  There is no level crossing at this point, and the BTP have in the recent past cautioned walkers found trespassing on the railway there.  AIUI one case was referred to the Procurator Fiscal through I believe in the end no further action was taken.

Post edited at 12:04
1
 henwardian 15 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Hmm, why bother with a petition? Surely a pair of bolt cutters would do the job in just a few seconds. And knowing government companies it'll take them 5-10 years to replace it.

(also, isn't it half-barrel hinges so you can just lift the gate off them to get your electric bike through?)

13
 henwardian 15 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

> One might reasonably be disappointed that closing useful crossings to casual users is regarded as a better solution than asking LNER to get Hitachi to make their trains' horns a bit louder...

The thing that disappoints me is that there is any need for a train horn for this particular purpose in the first place. Crossing the railway line is pretty bloody straightforward - look both ways then cross quickly - and it's not like you could accidentally stumble onto a train line without realising it! The only people I can conceive of who can't understand this without the aid of a train horn are the mentally unstable (who the train horn isn't going to help) and the suiciders (ditto).

9
 scratcher 15 Aug 2021
In reply to henwardian:

> The only people I can conceive of who can't understand this without the aid of a train horn are the mentally unstable (who the train horn isn't going to help) and the suiciders (ditto).

Does mentally unstable include those advocating taking a level crossing gate off its hinges?

3
 Robert Durran 15 Aug 2021
In reply to scratcher:

> Does mentally unstable include those advocating taking a level crossing gate off its hinges?

The mentally unhinged surely.

Anyway, presumably you would put it back on its hinges once you've got your electric bike through.

Post edited at 15:24
 Martin W 15 Aug 2021
In reply to henwardian:

> The thing that disappoints me is that there is any need for a train horn for this particular purpose in the first place.

It's an additional safety measure that the railways are basically obliged to take.  There are signs on the railways telling train drivers to sound the locomotive horn as an audible warning of the train's approach at certain high risk locations, level crossings being one.  In the past these signs were in the shape of a "W" for "whistle", a hangover from the age of steam.  I'm not sure whether they've ever been updated from that (TBH it could be a picture of Donald Duck for all the difference it would make so long as the railway staff understand what it means).

Historically, and still today, the railways were basically responsible for pretty much anything that went awry on their tracks.  That's because they were new technology back in the day, which ordinary people couldn't necessarily be relied upon to understand, or to accommodate in their day to day goings on in an intelligent way.  Hence in the UK railways have be fenced for their entire length, and any location where the general public may be required or could reasonably be expected to interact with the railway has to be made as safe as reasonably practicable.  In the case of level crossings such as this one, that means providing an audible warning of a trains approach to a crossing in addition to any other safety controls which might also be in place (such as having "Stop, Look, Listen" signs, which are commonly provided).

In some locations train operators are granted an exemption to sounding the train horn at certain times e.g. in residential areas in the middle of the night.  This doesn't always work out well:

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/people/mum-teenage-girl-killed-silent-...

As for it being "pretty bloody straightforward" to look both ways and cross quickly, try telling that to the casualty in this incident which took place on an off-street tramway crossing with clear "Look both ways" signage:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dd50f1440f0b606f02f5256/R09...

(And note that one of the RAIB's recommendations was that the tram horns should be louder.)

Call it 'elf'n'safety gone made if you wish, but the fact remains that the railways are held to far higher safety standards than, for example, the builders and users of roads are.  And any failures to meet those standards can cost the railway companies substantial sums of money, as well as costing people their lives.

Post edited at 16:20
1
 Martin W 15 Aug 2021

There is an ongoing discussion of the Dalwhinnie crossing issue on Walkhighlands: https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=107005&sk.... (Personal opinion: I'd ignore most of the postings by Sunset Tripper - AFAICS they consist mainly of huffing and puffing based on virtually no knowledge of the subject.  The majority of the other comments are generally useful or informative.)

The unhelpful attitude of Network Rail over the general issue of public use of private crossings was flagged up by Ramblers Scotland on Walkhighlands back in 2015: https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/ramblers-call-for-rights-of-access-ove... which then sparked a discussion: https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=49346

Other work that the Ramblers Scotland have been doing on the broader issue is summarised on their web site: https://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/scotland/access/crossing-railway-lines-i....  This has included contributing to a joint report produce by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission (their response to that report is linked from the web page above).  You can also read about the "test case" that they raised against Network Rail for closing a crossing on route designated a Core Path by Perth and Kinross Council, which unfortunately seems to have backfired, with the council proposing to remove the Core Path designation rather than enforcing access.

Post edited at 16:17
 Martin W 15 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

Going back to the specific case of the Dalwhinnie crossing, it seems to me that Network Rail aren't helping their case by saying that the underpass is ""one mile south of the crossing".  It's not; it's about half a kilometre.  If there were a direct path alongside the railway from the crossing to the underpass it would be about 400m long, although you would then have to go back northwards a similar distance on the other side of the railway to get on the to the normal Ben Alder track.

However, in the absence of a direct path, it is about 1.5km from the level crossing to the underpass by road.  That's partly because you have to head northwards back to the station access road in order to then go east along that to the main road, where you then head south again to get to the garage where you turn off west towards the underpass.  Basically it's going round three and half sides of a rectangle, which is a far from ideal if you're on foot.

In terms of tired walkers returning to a car parked in the walkers car park adjacent to the level crossing, it does add roughly a mile to the trip, being nearly 2km from where you leave the Ben Alder track to reaching the car park via the underpass and the road walk, vs 300m via the crossing.

I have signed the petition, if only to help make it clear how many people are unhappy about NR's high-handed approach.  I suspect, however, that some compromise will eventually end up being reached, such as a path alongside the railway (but not on railway property) to cut the distance between the walkers car park and the underpass.  (Providing access across the footbridge via a gate off the platform and a path on the west side of the line doesn't look particularly likely given that Network Rail has so far failed to act on warnings about the deteriorating state of the footbridge for several years.)

Post edited at 16:54
1
 scratcher 15 Aug 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> The mentally unhinged surely.

> Anyway, presumably you would put it back on its hinges once you've got your electric bike through.

Sounds like a great plan, but will anyone needing an electric bike have the strength to manhandle a heavy metal gate?

1
 Martin W 15 Aug 2021

There is a wider issue here as well, given Network Rail's antipathy to access rights in Scotland and their questionable interpretation of the law.  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.

 Martin W 15 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

> I know what you mean but it’s a bit trickier with a heavy bike.

According to Google Streetview (albeit the latest photo is dated 2014) the pedestrian gates are kissing gates, which aren't particularly bike-friendly, and especially so if said bike is laden with walking and camping/bothying gear.  Can anyone who's been there more recently confirm whether that's still the case?  If so, that might explain why the underpass option seems, by many accounts, to have been increasingly favoured by people with bikes even before the gates were locked.

(It's so long since I went through that way - with bike - that I honestly can't remember what the crossing gates were like back then.)

 rif 15 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

The pedestrian gates are fine for bikes nowadays. I didn't take a photo of them when I was there a month ago, but the first image in this WH report from last year (not mine) shows the crossing well:

https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=98616

Note that there's loads of room between the gates and the actual rail tracks for you to stop-look-listen, and visibility to the south is good (less good north, though).

I wouldn't want to heave a bike + luggage over a railway footbridge -- the CC bridge in Rothiemurchus is bad enough. If NR refuse to give way, what's needed is a bikeable path along the east side of the railway from the crossing to the underpass. 

 veteye 15 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

I went across the crossing about 2 years ago, but don't remember having too much trouble with my bike.

I've signed the petition too.

 SFM 16 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

If it is just all about train horns then it’s pretty pathetic this has lead to the crossing being locked but could be useful to embarrass NR Twitter style. 
Surely there is a more elegant way to alert level crossing users to nearby trains. Even if it’s simply amplifying the rail line vibration to signal train proximity?
Alternatively just replace the padlock with a combination one and make the number known locally 😉

Post edited at 06:46
 Martin W 16 Aug 2021
In reply to SFM:

> If it is just all about train horns

It almost certainly isn't - see my post at 21:03 on Sunday.

> Surely there is a more elegant way to alert level crossing users to nearby trains. Even if it’s simply amplifying the rail line vibration to signal train proximity?

Anything that would involve spending money would be a no-no, given that Network Rail don't think members of the general public should be using the crossing (or indeed any private crossing) at all.

 ScraggyGoat 16 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

If the underpass becomes the default approach, most people who arrive by car will just park as close as possible to it.  This will potentially annoy the residents on that street and possibly the estate and hydro if parking becomes obstructive.

It will also be a pain to canoeists and kayakers whom occasionally paddle the Loch, as the underpass is the best access for that, and it would be a pain to carry a boat further than needed if the few spaces at the end by the underpass are always full, or if parking restrictions end up being put in place there.

 ScraggyGoat 16 Aug 2021

Good on the Ramblers being quick off the mark and organising the petition.  
 

On other access issues their responses to Scot Gov consultations (that I have read)  have been good as well (better than MS submissions).

 Martin W 16 Aug 2021
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I don't disagree at all.  It would be helpful if NR could acknowledge that their high-handed action is implicitly going to lead to parking issues elsewhere in Dalwhinnie, when money has only recently been spent on improving the parking provision at the existing level crossing.

I'm told that the service station on the main street allows all-day parking £3; they seem to have a lot of space available for it.  That's roughly 250m from the underpass, and would add roughly half a km to the distance in the Ben Alder etc compared to the route from the walkers car park via the level crossing.  Maybe not ideal for kayakers and canoeists, though - or for people overnighting at Culra bothy given that the charge is per day.  (And we know how averse many walkers and climbers are to paying for parking anyway.)

Bottom line, though, is that NR have created a problem and they should be closely involved in solving it if they actually mean what they say on their web site about working "collaboratively and sensitively with the communities affected by our work on the railway": https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/

 Martin W 16 Aug 2021
In reply to rif:

> Note that there's loads of room between the gates and the actual rail tracks for you to stop-look-listen, and visibility to the south is good (less good north, though).

FWIW the linespeed through Dalwhinnie station is 70mph southbound (which is quite a lot faster than traffic on the A9 is supposed to be travelling).  Obviously trains stopping at the station don't go that fast (the Hitachi trains don't stop there, though there is only one of those each way each day anyway).  There is also a crossover on the double track section which is limited to 15mph for any train needing to use it, which might explain how some folks have got the idea that trains go through there very slowly.  (There was a derailment there recently when a train was routed over the crossover by mistake, and ended up coming off the rails at about 33mph.  Some have speculated that this incident might have somehow drawn NR's attention to the nearby level crossing, but it might equally just be a coincidence.)

> I wouldn't want to heave a bike + luggage over a railway footbridge -- the CC bridge in Rothiemurchus is bad enough. If NR refuse to give way, what's needed is a bikeable path along the east side of the railway from the crossing to the underpass. 

Me neither.  I'm not convinced that a bikeable path is needed (though it would no doubt be a nice-to-have) given that it's only roughly 2km to get on to the main Ben Alder track via the underpass from the walkers car park by road, and pretty much dead flat (OS says 13m of ascent total).  I think making better provision for walkers is a higher priority in this instance, which could simply mean enabling a readily usable 'desire line' route (by moving fences or putting in stiles) outside the railway boundary on the east side, or ditto from the west platform of the station.

However, I think the highest priority should be trying to persuade NR to pull their neck in and be a bit more reasonable about the whole thing.

 Robert Durran 16 Aug 2021
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> Good on the Ramblers being quick off the mark and organising the petition.  Hi

> On other access issues their responses to Scot Gov consultations (that I have read)  have been good as well (better than MS submissions).

Maybe mountaineers are better at climbing over gates than ramblers.

5
 StuPoo2 16 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Signed.

But ... if this comes to pass is it really as big a deal that it is being made out to be?  Point taken in advance, what NR have done is sh1t .. no denying it.  You don't need to convince me of it.

But let's look at the facts.

Previously: We parked in the small parking bay immediately south of the station, hopped straight over the line and started walking.  By my measure (Garmin Basecamp) .. it is ~ 294m from the current parking to where it joins with the path that runs along the bottom of the dam - the path that we are apparently now meant to use.

Now:  See below.  Inevitably ... the car park will move.  If this comes to pass, the carpark will move from where it is today at the crossing to immediately before the culvert (there is already parking space to squeeze the car in immediately before the culvert).   If we measure the distance from before the culvert to the same point as above .. ~481m (basecamp).  So when the carpark inevitably moves (which I think it will) ... we'll have to walk an additional 187m.  That's nothing.

Point taken in advance "that's not the point .. NR shouldn't have done it".  Yeah - i agree ... I'm just highlighting that in the grand scheme of things .. if this comes to pass it isn't some sort of show stopper.  And it doesn't stop anyone using any of the facilities back up at the station ... you just nip your car round the 2min drive at the end.

Below is the view directly under the culvert, ironically there is a car visible on the other side, but there is also gate.  I'll hazard a guess (someone keep me right) that the parking immediately below the dam will be owned/controlled by Scottish Hydro Electric.  It would appear there is already amble parking through the culvert and behind the gate if Scottish Hydro could be convinced to let it be used.  Failing that .. the land immediately to the north of the culvert on the east side (I mean ~10-20m immediately from the culvert) looks vacant/unused i.e. would appear on paper capable of accommodating a carpark of similar size to the current one ... should there be a desire to put one here.

I'm only making the point that this isn't an end game conversation.  It's a minor inconvenience at worst.

Culvert:  https://www.google.com/maps/@56.9280916,-4.2450347,3a,75y,276.58h,82.33t/da...

Let the onslaught begin.

EDIT: For the sake of completeness, again using BaseCamp, I estimated the distance from the current car park down to the culvert assuming a new path that tracks the curve of the railway.  ~539m.  As I've mentioned above, from the culvert up to joining the existing track = 481m.  Total = 1020m.  Less the 294m you would be walking anyway from the current carpark that you no longer need to do .. means a loop down round the culvert (assuming a new path) would add 726m, out and back, to a day up Ben Alder.

Post edited at 13:21
2
 StuPoo2 16 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

Since I am poking the UKC bear ... let me make 1x more suggestion.

The Dalwhinnie train station has a pedestrian bridge over the railway line already.  They could build a path that walks off the western side of Dalwhinnie platform and runs down parallel to the line and joins the track immediately to the north of the crossing.

There are options and north and south of the crossing that let people cross the line 100% safely.

Said path would need to be ~237m long.

EDIT: Dalwhinnie station bridge:  https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3401943  I "think" looking down towards the crossing.

Post edited at 13:36
 Robert Durran 16 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

Yes, with two alternatives if you don't want to climb the gates, it does seem a bit of a non-issue for visitors. It sounds like any real impact is likely to be on the local community.

 StuPoo2 16 Aug 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

Fair point .. when I said "not a big deal" above ... I very specifically meant in the context of walkers/hikers/cyclists/canoeists etc.  I did not mean it in the context of the local community.

I have no idea what impact this will/will not have for the local community. 

Maybe someone can enlighten me?  Did the local community make significant use of the crossing previously?  If so - what for?

1
 Martin W 16 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

FYI, both the points you make: distances, and access from the down platform at Dalwhinnie station, have been raised previously on this thread.

Oh, and (engages pedant mode) that "culvert" you speak of is actually a rail overbridge.  A culvert is, strictly speaking, for watercourses or drains (though tell that to the people who seem to reckon that stumbling through the culvert to access Ben Lui from Glen Lochy is a good idea).

Post edited at 14:26
 Robert Durran 16 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

> I have no idea what impact this will/will not have for the local community. 

> Maybe someone can enlighten me?  Did the local community make significant use of the crossing previously?  If so - what for?

See the BBC link earlier in the thread.

 Martin W 16 Aug 2021

Still in pedant mode: regarding the issue with the horns on the Hitachi Class 800 trains, it seems that the problem is not that they aren't loud enough, but that the loud ones (they have at least two loudness settings in the cab) have a habit of failing.  See discussion of a similar issue at Cononley in North Yorkshire: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/foot-crossing-near-cononley-closed-as-...  It seems that the issue in that instance was resolved by reverting to older trains with more reliable horns - which was actually planned to happen anyway.

Note the 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.

 ScraggyGoat 16 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

The area before the rail bridge is used as a marshalling yard for forestry operations. You can park maybe six cars max opposite it.  

yes it might become the new car park in future, but it’s not unused at present.

 StuPoo2 16 Aug 2021
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Looking at strava heatmap (unscientific) it would appear that both routes across the railway line are ~approximately evenly utilized today by Strava users for both cycling and on foot.

It certainly isn't the case, (As I felt has been made the case) from Strava data, that for example the crossing was the primary route over the line with only a few stragglers using the Rail Overbridge (Thank you @MartinW).

https://www.strava.com/heatmap#15.75/-4.24433/56.93074/hot/run

To be clear .. i am not in anyway suggesting NR's actions are good or defensible .. I think they are reprehensible.  I'm just a little confused as to why this made national news.  Aside from the local community .. I can't see how this makes a blind bit of difference to the outdoor community.  

If the parking is full immediately up at the Rail Overbridge - park at the services 500m back.  Easy.  (That would have been no different if the parking at the crossing was full .. you'd have had to have parked further back into the village)

 StuPoo2 16 Aug 2021
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> The area before the rail bridge is used as a marshalling yard for forestry operations. You can park maybe six cars max opposite it.  

I do see that clearly now you mention it on the Bing imagary:  https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=94f7c936-e85e-465f-8b3d-731bf2443389&cp=...

There is gallons of space through the Rail Overbridge between the dam and the railway.

 Rampart 16 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

>  They could build a path that walks off the western side of Dalwhinnie platform and runs down parallel to the line and joins the track immediately to the north of the crossing.

While we're enthusing for better foot access, I'd like to raise the idea of another one heading north from the station to the turn-off track to Allt an't Sluic Lodge (approx NN 636863) that would shortcut the road round the distillery. I know it's not that far in the grand scheme of things, but the prospect is a bit dismaying in big boots and I for one have certainly been tempted a couple of times to follow the railway for a bit to save the trudge...

 Fat Bumbly2 16 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

Not a minor inconvenience if arriving or leaving by train.

Not a minor inconvenience when this is repeated elsewhere…. Altnabreac is in their sights according to the Caithness Local Access Forum. Then there are Craig, Balsporran, and many others. Really frightening to those of us doing long glen through routes

 Martin W 17 Aug 2021

Exactly, it's the wider picture that causes concern.  The issue of public pedestrian & cycle use of private level crossings has been a point of significant contention between Network Rail and the outdoor activities community in the whole of Scotland since the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 came in to force and NR went around putting signs of questionable validity and authority on the gates of every private level crossing in the country.  There is a genuine fear that, if they could, NR would close every such crossing to the public, leaving them accessible only to key/combination holders.  NR's action at Dalwhinnie, if allowed to stand, could be the tip of the iceberg of them proceeding vastly to impede access to Scotland's hills - the very opposite of what was intended by the original legislation.

 spenser 17 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

If Network Rail had their way they would padlock every single level crossing with themselves holding the only key. Level Crossing deaths have been consistently reducing since 2007-2008 from 10 deaths per year to 2 deaths, presumably due to Network Rail removing the most dangerous level crossings.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we...

I don't support the approach but I do understand why they are taking it.

 fred99 17 Aug 2021
In reply to spenser:

> If Network Rail had their way they would padlock every single level crossing with themselves holding the only key....

I have no problem with Network Rail removing EVERY rail crossing in the entire UK, but with one single caveat - that they build a decent and appropriate bridge over the railway at EVERY SINGLE CROSSING.

These routes, be they pedestrian or vehicular, were there long before the railways came into being, and the idea that the local population of any particular area - or indeed visitors - should have to make inordinately long detours just to travel is ridiculous.

Indeed a similar argument could easily be made for getting Network Rail to widen and/or raise the bridges that go over/under the railways for roads. The number that constrict traffic in a potentially dangerous way, or are at 90 degrees to the railway, and hence insert a sharp bend (or two) in roads - even major ones - is incredible.

Removed User 17 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

> It's rumoured that one reason why Network Rail have suddenly decided that this crossing has to be closed is because the new Class 800 trains that run through there twice a day at a fair lick don't have a sufficiently loud horn to provide adequate warning of their approach.  Apparently another, similar crossing on the East Coast Main Line in Yorkshire has already been closed for this reason.  One might reasonably be disappointed that closing useful crossings to casual users is regarded as a better solution than asking LNER to get Hitachi to make their trains' horns a bit louder...

This is indeed the case. The point about raising levels is valid however this has to be balanced with the need to control environmental noise (imagine living in the vicinity of a whistle board). Long term solution is obviously to replace crossing with bridges. 

 StuPoo2 18 Aug 2021
In reply to fred99:

> I have no problem with Network Rail removing EVERY rail crossing in the entire UK, but with one single caveat - that they build a decent and appropriate bridge over the railway at EVERY SINGLE CROSSING.

There is a bridge over the line at Dalwhinnie ... its ~300m from the existing carpark at the station. 

> These routes, be they pedestrian or vehicular, were there long before the railways came into being, and the idea that the local population of any particular area - or indeed visitors - should have to make inordinately long detours just to travel is ridiculous.

The detour to the bridge over the line is ~300m north, the detour to the rail overbridge under the line is ~500m south.  In your opinion .. do either of these constitute "inordinately long detours"?

2
 fred99 18 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

I was talking about EVERYWHERE, not being specific to this one location - which could end up being "the thin end of the wedge".

Anyway, why can't the bridge be where the long standing route is - why does it have to be somewhere else. This should have been dealt with when the line was laid.

 StuPoo2 18 Aug 2021
In reply to fred99:

> Anyway, why can't the bridge be where the long standing route is - why does it have to be somewhere else. This should have been dealt with when the line was laid.

So you would propose moving the bridge at the railway station .. that railway users use to access the platform on the other side of the track with their luggage .. down 300m away from the station to the crossing point ... so that walkers can use it?  Is that your proposal?

Bridge:  https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3401943

1
 nufkin 18 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

>  The detour to the bridge over the line is ~300m north

Is there an accessible route to the crossing from the station bridge? From memory it's fenced, and NR probably would be even less keen for people to walk along the track than they appear to be for people to cross them

 StuPoo2 18 Aug 2021
In reply to nufkin:

> Is there an accessible route to the crossing from the station bridge? From memory it's fenced, and NR probably would be even less keen for people to walk along the track than they appear to be for people to cross them

According to the Dalwhinnie Community Council spokesperson .. people are doing just that.

"cross the rail bridge at the station, go through the little gate at the end ... I'm seeing more and more people doing that"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000ys71 jump to 19:10

I am only making the point here that this is not the scale of impact that some are making it out to be.  There is a bridge and a tunnel within easy walking distance from the current carpark.  No ones access rights are being impacted .. nothing is being blocked off.  We just can't, currently, cross a railway line whenever we like with highspeed trains running on it.  Not perfect but this isn't the worlds most unreasonable decision given the multitude of alternative access that have been in place right next to the crossing for 100's of years already.

Post edited at 13:03
3
 fred99 18 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

Why didn't NR put bridges at ALL the points where their rail route crossed an existing path/track/road - not just the ones they felt like doing.

This entire problem is down to arrogance and penny-pinching by the railways in the first place.

3
In reply to Catriona:

Anyone fancy organising a mass trespass on the railway a la Kinder?

Signed.

2
 StuPoo2 18 Aug 2021
In reply to fred99:

> Why didn't NR put bridges at ALL the points where their rail route crossed an existing path/track/road - not just the ones they felt like doing.

You are quite correct Fred99.  Having 1x foot bridge, 1x crossing and 1x rail over bridge (tunnel) all accessible within 1km of track is entirely unreasonable on NR's part.  

> This entire problem is down to arrogance and penny-pinching by the railways in the first place.

This isn't a problem ... that's the whole point!  Just park up at the rail overbridge or at the services 250m back from the railoverbridge, walk through the tunnel and enjoy your day out.  Hurrah!

I mean seriously.  Starting your walk from the rail over bridge vs starting from the current car park is, as we worked out above, going to add <200m in each direction.  Let's assume you walk 5km/h ... thats < 3 mins of walking each way.  It's a drop in the ocean.  If you p1ss about getting ready at the car .. you'll loose 6 mins.  If you get stuck in traffic on the A9 .. you'll loose 6 mins .  If you have a break at Perth Tiso for grub ... you loose 6 mins.  If you need petrol ... you'll loose 6 mins.  

Why are you so outraged at the thought of walking through a rail overbridge 500m down the road that will mean an extra 6 mins of walking?  It's a nothing.

Post edited at 14:34
8
 Fat Bumbly2 18 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

What if you arrive or depart by train

When they lock other roads it may not be so easy

 FactorXXX 18 Aug 2021
In reply to fred99:

> Why didn't NR put bridges at ALL the points where their rail route crossed an existing path/track/road - not just the ones they felt like doing.
> This entire problem is down to arrogance and penny-pinching by the railways in the first place.

Blame the Victorians for that.

 tehmarks 18 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

> ...thats < 3 mins of walking each way.  It's a drop in the ocean.  If you p1ss about getting ready at the car .. you'll loose 6 mins.  If you get stuck in traffic on the A9 .. you'll loose 6 mins .  If you have a break at Perth Tiso for grub ... you loose 6 mins.  If you need petrol ... you'll loose 6 mins.  

That may be the case at Dalwhinnie, but it doesn't hold that that is the case at every other location where there's a crossing in NR's sights. It's the principle that is the problem, not the specifics of the crossing in Dalwhinnie.

 FactorXXX 18 Aug 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> That may be the case at Dalwhinnie, but it doesn't hold that that is the case at every other location where there's a crossing in NR's sights. It's the principle that is the problem, not the specifics of the crossing in Dalwhinnie.

Isn't this perhaps another victim of Covid-19 making the UK outdoors more popular and therefore the crossing has been closed on genuine safety grounds?
Obviously, if that is the case, then Network Rail need to declare that is the reason and in the hope that it will be reversed when things go back to normal.

1
In reply to Catriona:

> Ramblers Scotland have an online petition asking for Network Rail to reopen the recently locked gates over the track to Ben Alder and other lovely places: https://e-activist.com/page/88022/petition/1?locale=en-GB

It amazes me that people sh*t themselves about safety on a level crossing on a railway with almost no trains on it and yet it's perfectly OK to put a pedestrian crossing across the A9 or A1 without any traffic controls.   You can hear trains a long way off on that line and you can hear the track vibrate when they get close.

Go to California and there's level crossings all over the place, none of the fences and nobody sweats it. 

1
 Martin W 19 Aug 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Go to California and there's level crossings all over the place, none of the fences and nobody sweats it. 

There's a channel on YouTube called Virtual Railfan which is chock full of CCTV footage of utter idiocy perpetrated on US level crossings.  It's ridiculous to pretend that there is no problem over there.

Meanwhile, back in the UK: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cumbria-58202029. And https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hereford-worcester-57976716.  And https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-dorset-44457961.  And so on ad nauseam.  And if any of those incidents had resulted in injury or a fatality, NR and TOC would have been under intense scrutiny with the risk of being found partly or wholly liable.  Highways England or the DfT don't risk prosecution every time there's a collision on the roads.

People who think that crossing a railway is just the same as crossing the road are part of the problem.

Post edited at 08:28
1
 fred99 19 Aug 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Isn't this perhaps another victim of Covid-19 making the UK outdoors more popular and therefore the crossing has been closed on genuine safety grounds?

> Obviously, if that is the case, then Network Rail need to declare that is the reason and in the hope that it will be reversed when things go back to normal.

"In the hope that it will be reversed when things go back to normal" !!!

What planet do you live on - anyone with any common sense knows damn well that they'd never backtrack once they've closed something.

1
 FactorXXX 19 Aug 2021
In reply to fred99:

> "In the hope that it will be reversed when things go back to normal" !!!
> What planet do you live on - anyone with any common sense knows damn well that they'd never backtrack once they've closed something.

Has anyone actually been bothered to ask?
Might be better to get Network Rails response and then kick up a fuss if needs be.
 

2
 rka 19 Aug 2021
In reply to Catriona:

If you have a mobile phone download the scotrail app and use Live Arrivals feature for Dalwhinnie. It gives next arrival/departure time of next train and its current staus which I presume comes from signalling track circuit data.

Could include in an app as API available https://github.com/rtgnx/scotrail-api

Post edited at 11:51
1
 StuPoo2 19 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

Also in the news today ... "Cambridgeshire: Train driver injured in level crossing collision"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-58269427

 fred99 19 Aug 2021
In reply to StuPoo2:

> Also in the news today ... "Cambridgeshire: Train driver injured in level crossing collision"

That's an argument for a bridge rather than just blocking the crossing.

 FactorXXX 19 Aug 2021
In reply to fred99:

> That's an argument for a bridge rather than just blocking the crossing.

In that case, it sounds more like educating the users is the best option.
With the original one stated for Dalwhinnie, if Network Rail refuse to re-open the gates to pedestrians and cyclists, etc. then the only option is to improve the path to the alternative crossing which is an existing underbridge.
In either case and all other crossings of a similar nature, a bridge isn't going to built due to the huge costs involved in both the actual cost of the physical bridge and in the cost of having to close the railway, etc. whilst it's being built.
 

In reply to Martin W:

> People who think that crossing a railway is just the same as crossing the road are part of the problem.

Crossing the A9 dual carriageway on a perfectly legal marked crossing with tons of cars whizzing past at 60 is far more dangerous than crossing a railway line with hardly any trains at Dalwhinnie.  Orders of magnitude more dangerous.  

Let's put it in perspective: 50% chance of getting cancer, 170 people a day currently dying of Covid in UK, 1700 people a year dying in road accidents and 2 deaths on level crossings.   It's over-engineered relative to other systems we are perfectly happy with.  There's no reason to trade convenience for even more safety.

For a line like the West Highland line thorough remote areas and with few trains they should have a more relaxed view about people crossing the railway.  More like the rules in countries with similar situations than rules designed for the home counties.

1
 Robert Durran 19 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

> People who think that crossing a railway is just the same as crossing the road are part of the problem.

Indeed. Far safer crossing a railway than most main roads.

You could walk across he railway at Dalwhinnie at a randon time blindfolded and cross with pretty low risk. Doing that on the A9 nearby would be orders of magnitude more risky (just ask yourself how much you would need to be paid to do each).

And the railway has gates and warning notices too!

Post edited at 22:57
In reply to Catriona:

Signed. Thanks for flagging this.

 StuPoo2 20 Aug 2021
In reply to fred99:

> That's an argument for a bridge rather than just blocking the crossing.

Or .... thinking outside the box .... a rail overbridge maybe?  Say within 500m of the existing crossing.  Would be perfect for a tractor and completely avoid this incident.  Perfect.

Just an idea.

 spenser 20 Aug 2021
In reply to rka:

Worth noting this doesn't include freight trains and empty carriage moves.

 inboard 20 Aug 2021
In reply to spenser & rka:

amd also the passenger trains that don’t stop at Dalwhinnie  

 tehmarks 20 Aug 2021
In reply to Martin W:

> People who think that crossing a railway is just the same as crossing the road are part of the problem.

Or perhaps:

> Highways England or the DfT don't risk prosecution every time there's a collision on the roads.

Is part of the problem? If I get ran over on a zebra crossing (every chance of that happening in the hellhole that is London), Highways England don't face intense scrutiny. If I get ran over on a rail crossing that meets some sensible minimum standard (ie it's not sited on a blind bend on a 125mph line), why should NR face intense scrutiny.

I really, really hate this bizarre concept of feeling that people need to be protected from themselves — in whatever form in which it manifests itself.

 spenser 21 Aug 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

The railways are governed very differently to the road network, operators and Network Rail are held to a far higher standard. 

 deepsoup 21 Aug 2021
In reply to spenser:

I'm not sure you read the post correctly, he's not disputing that.  He's suggesting that perhaps trying to maintain an unrealistically high 'standard' is precisely the problem.

 tehmarks 21 Aug 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

That is exactly what I am trying to say. No one is arguing that having open and unrestricted access to HS1 or the ECML would be sensible — but having the aim of closing all uncontrolled foot crossings is also stupid. It's stupid for a number of reasons, but the obvious standout one for me is that it will encourage trespass on the line. Even this thread clearly demonstrates that.

If a crossing already exists, there should be a requirement for it to be replaced with a grade-separated crossing if NR seem it too hazardous to continue to be open. If there is a precedent of private crossings being used publicly on foot, it should also be a requirement that it is considered a public foot crossing when considering closure.

 deepsoup 21 Aug 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

Couldn't agree more.

 spenser 21 Aug 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

It would certainly make things a lot cheaper! 

 biggianthead 22 Aug 2021
In reply to spenser:

bump

 Belle74 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Signed. 

 digby 18 Sep 2021
In reply to Catriona:

I've seen many pedestrian gates or stiles on their own or next to vehicle gates, with green/red lights advising whether to cross or not. Some on intercity main lines with a terrifyingly short interval between red and hundreds of tons of thundering metal bearing down. 
Surely a pedestrian gate of this sort could be installed? Can't cost that much. Leaves the estate vehicular access 'private' and maintains the pedestrian ROW.

Post edited at 16:18
 pjcollinson 18 Sep 2021
In reply to Catriona:

Signed.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...