Bluebell Railway General Discussion

Worth getting this crossings issue into perspective.

To my knowledge only three people have been killed on the whole Lewes & East Grinstead Railway (including the branch to Haywards Heath) in the 130-odd years of its existence.

One was my great grandfather, who was knocked down by an engine in 1908 at HK. He was the senior ganger between HK and SP and was killed in the course of his duties, so nothing to do with a pedestrian crossing. See http://www.national-preservation.com/threads/accident-at-horsted-keynes-13-october-1908.39833/

The other two were a couple who were taking a shortcut home by walking along the line in the vicinity of Nobles Farm. While it was a tragedy, they were walking in an area they shouldn't have been, so again it wasn't an accident at a crossing. See http://www.horstedkeynes.com/tragedy.html

So, in the grand scheme of things, without wishing to sound complacent, the safety record at crossings is actually pretty good!

Tom

 

There is also the issues that:

a) The paths exist for a reason, whilst in many cases that reason no longer exists and the path is used for leisure 'rambling' only, in many cases they form an important part of the local transport infrastructure.

b) In many cases closing a path would cause foot traffic to shift onto the road. The risk of a pedestrian dieing on the railway would be removed but the overall risk to the pedestrian could, in many cases, be increased.

To take an example I know of. When I was a teenager I used to walk to school. Many others did, including a group from a Hamlet that lay across a major railway. They used a foot crossing.

Today the crossing is closed. The foot journey is three times as long and takes the children along a narrow, unlit, country lane with no footway. The railway crosses over this road by a bridge with no footway and poor sight-lines. So either parents drive their children to school or they walk 3/4 of a mile rather than 1/4 and are exposed, I would argue, to much greater risk than they were when the crossing was in use. But at least nobody will be killed or injured on the Railway.

 

Not that it's really important, but I'm actually a UK citizen resident abroad.

Noel

 

That category of idiocy is now commonplace and will spread further until neo-liberal economic policies are curtailed and the fragmentation of society reversed.

 

How did the footpath cross the line when the station was in use, did it use the station footbridge?

Surely the footpath can be moved to either end of the platforms, rather than across the middle of them? And a replacement footbridge - if roofed like the original one, can either be boarded in at the ends or have small windows above human eye level, removing the risk of overlooking other people's gardens/houses?

The Bluebell's current Long Term Plan (I'm a member) states:

The West Hoathly site will be reserved for an LB&SCR style station and buildings, presented in a 1940s Southern Railway appearance. Consideration will be given to establishing an initial "halt" to enable exploration of the commercial value of a full station, prior to major construction. The style of any new station should be sympathetic to the architectural appearance of other Bluebell stations.
The site could provide the opportunity to offer the local community a focal point, or a community facility, within the station complex, following consultation with residents on their requirements.

and:

Re-building West Hoathly station complex. - for 10 year period up to 2023.

Both of these to me suggest that the Bluebell is envisaging that a much larger station than a single platform halt will be built if the commercial value is deemed worthwhile. No offence intended Tom, but what you have said above seems to be contradicting that?

Chris

 

I wonder when West Hoathly station is built will a passing loop also be install? Having a passing loop put in at West Hoathly would allow an increase in service trains at special events.

 

@PortRoadFan - by "halt" I meant a simple stopping place within the existing HK - KC section that would not be a block post and would not involve dividing the section into separate HK - WH and WH - KC sections. I wasn't implying anything about the grandeur, or lack of, the buildings erected there. Within the experience of the Lewes - East Grinstead throughout its history, "halt" could be as simple as Ketches, or as grandiose as Barcombe in its latter, unsignalled, years. I'd imagine a seven coach platform but beyond that, as the LTP suggests, possibly a simple building to start with pending a more elaborate one if the demand was there.

@73129 - building an extra platform with extra track work, points etc and the associated signalling and dividing the block section would be massively more complicated than a simple bit of plain line, and wouldn't be justified on operational grounds for our regular service. I can't see it could be financially justified just to increase options at special events.

Tom

 

Port Road Fan I believe the public right of way may have come into existance between closure and reopening.

 

I'm on holiday at the mo without access to old Bluebell Newses; but I'm sure I read somewhere that the crossing is actually permissive rather than technically a right of way? Realistically I guess it makes little difference as Bluebell will need local goodwill to get through planning permission and not want to upset the residents...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And a damned good job too. Many public rights of way go back to ancient times, the road network of their day and they form a hugely important part of our history.

Closing one simply because a preserved railway wants to reinstate a stretch of line is no different to building a motorway and making a preserved railway close that the route happens to cross. And imagine the outrage that wold cause on this forum?

Ancient rights of way are no more 'just for ramblers' than preserved railways are 'just for train buffs'.

And I for one am really grateful that you had nothing to do with that legislation!

Out of interest, what's your view on the whole Native Indian thing in the US?

 

I was merely expressing my surprise that the legislation had not done that, not saying that it should, or should not, have done so.

Were I to ponder it for a while (I haven't), I might actually agree with you that keeping them open was the correct call.

Noel

 

When Whipsnade Zoo was opened, an Act of Parliament was required to divert a couple of rights of way around the site. The National Trust wants to move a right of way at Ightham Mote, and that will cost a fortune and take ages. Millionaire Jeremy Clarkson tried to get a public footpath across his garden closed, and failed. There are better things to do with the Bluebell's money than trying and probably failing to close a path.

 

"Parliament" and "without too much trouble" are surely incompatible statements.

 

I have to concede that you have a point there!

Anyway, as Tom pointed out above, the proof is in the pudding, and the count of people injured at footpath RoW level crossings is not significant (are there any at all - I'm not including general 'pedestrian on line somewhere' in that, just specifically at RoW crossings)? Unlike 'rail versus vehicle' at level crossings, which seem to occur with some regularity!

Noel

 

Unfortunately there are and rather too many, arising mainly from people not taking adequate sts to cross safely.

 

4 deaths in 2012/13 when a train struck a pedestrian or cyclist, and 10 collisions with a motor vehicle resulting in 5 deaths. (9 deaths in total)

Rather too many? Well 1 death is "too many" of course, but again let's keep some perspective...there are more deaths every day on British roads (the safest of any major country according to the UN) than die crossing a railway by foot in a year. As to whether or not people are taking adequate precautions, I think that is a sweeping generalisation not entirely borne out by the various reports into crossing accidents.

 

I must admit I thought there more so I have to accept I was wrong.

 

Yes, I was going to agree that the number of people killed and seriously injured by road vehicles every day massively outweighs (probably by factors of hundreds, more likely thousands, to one) those killed or seriously injured by trains, planes or boats.

I'm not an enthusiastic flier, but I always deal with the feeling of 'wooooaaaah' by remembering that statistically I am infinitely more likely to come to harm in my car during the drive to the airport than onboard an aircraft.

Back more strictly to the point, you also have to compare the numbers of people who safely cross railways on the level to those who come to grief. How many people safely cross UK railway level and foot crossings every day? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

Compared to that, 9 deaths is an infitessimally tiny number.

 

The idea that WH should be reinstated as a two-platform station with passing loop is not mutually exclusive with the idea of an initial simple halt within the existing block section. All you need are a couple of in-section ground frames to allow the second platform line to be accessed occasionally, then later upgrade to a signal box which could be closed when a less intense service is in operation - king levers to release the opposing locking, and long- and short- section train staffs, are all that should be required. Whether there would be any operational merit in having a loop there is a question for the Bluebell; I don't know enough about the relative timings through the various sections.

Of course, the other way would be to install double track between HK and Kingscote... you wouldn't need any signalling at WH at all then! ;-)

 

You have to be really carefull with safety stats, especially with air travel as they love to quote things based on milage rather than journeys. Also certain 'evolutions' are more dangerous than others and not each journey involves them.