Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by 14xx Lover, Jan 4, 2010.
nothing insurmountable were the money and opportunity there
A conflict in terms, surely? They are there to be seen, and the interesting end at the top has been marred by the oil refinery pipe.
I apologise if this has been asked before, but on the tactile slabs, what is the difference between Corwen and, say, Broadway? Both are newbuild stations where there was nothing there before. Is the block paving cheaper than tarmac, which would surely look better?
As I understand it tactile paving is recommended for new platforms. There seems to be a differing view about use on heritage railways. I believe that ORR would suggest that they should be used on a new platform (ORR do not give approval or otherwise).
Ultimately it’s down to the railway concerned whether they are installed or not as they are ultimately responsible for the safety of the platform and its users.
Was Broadway not rebuilt on the original station site? Corwen platform is a complete new build rather than recreation of something that was there before. As for a tarmac surface, how do you get it onto a platform on top of an embankment with no road access to rail / platform level. Or indeed the machines to roll it.
Originally would have been 3x2s, not tarmac.
From what I believe the platform design is down to the constraints of the site. Not enough room length or widthways to do much more than what is there. 8 coach length one side, but only 6 the other with no ramps. I’m assuming this is to do with minimum width specification for island platforms against single faced platforms?
But then the GWR wouldn’t have built the platform out of legioblocks would it.
It was indeed, yes. I'm struggling to wrap my head round why that makes a difference when they're both brand new stations starting with nothing on the ground (not a jab at you, but the ORR or whoever decides that it does make a difference!)
As @Breva has said, slabs would have been much better than tarmac or blocks.
I believe that ramps are no longer a requirement for platforms.
As long as measures such as fencing and step access are in place.
RSP5 suggests that tactile paviors should be provided. However, when we installed them on a new platform the Railway Inspector made the comment that they are not bothered about them on heritage railways. Make of that, what you will.
thank you, interesting. I had a slightly different comment but it was several years ago now.
My guess would be that on a risk assessed basis there is a world of difference in terms of speeds and staff availability to assist people at heritage railways whereas mainline ones will often feature a total lack of staff and trains passing at high speed. Also when assessing relative risks an island will automatically be more hazardous as there is no safe area by a fence. Maybe somebody with impaired sight would be able to comment further.
They might hear a train come in one side and step back to get away from it and fall off the other side on an island. The Orr make them put them on these platforms more I would think.
Isn't there something about wheelchair users having to be able to leave the platform in the case of a fire? (on a stopped train I assume. ) Don't know where they'd go though - they'd just end up un the cess or 6 foot.
There is a disabled access ramp from the west end of the new Corwen platform. Presumably there is a barrow crossing, but I wouldn't want to be the one writing the method statement for safe usage by non-railway personnel
There is a stairlift for wheelchair users to exit via the subway. I’m assuming this method is suitable in an emergency as there’s not much alternative! I believe they did look at having a narrow crossing then ramp down to the waterworks access road for the disabled access but this didn’t work out as the users would then end up on a fairly busy road with no pavements.
This does not sound like a terribly brilliant arrangement in the event of fire, power failure or other kind of failure. In this sort of situation, buildings are required to provide evacuation chairs which are not free from difficulties of use and require special training of staff.
I would imagine there would be an emergency gate somewhere that in a panic people could walk down to. But as for the disabled access I think this needs looking into. It is not good for people to be tempted onto the track.
Wasn’t Broadway on its original site? Therefore some grandfather rights were still applicable.
It’s how Beddgelert was allowed to be rebuilt, new stations can’t have a gradient greater than 1in300(?) or something. However as Beddgelert was on its original site, it was permitted despite being on a 1in33.
LR Corwen station will have none of this, as it is completely new with enhanced embankment.
Separate names with a comma.