Rother Valley Railway

This link *should * take you to the details:

Rother District Council

Richard

 

Looks very nice - A five coach length platform with buildings in traditional Col. Stephens KESR design.
Means a complete redevelopment of their existing station site and what they have built in the last 20 years will be completely changed.
Moving their existing station offices, demolition of their recently built platform and completely ripping up ALL the existing track and relaying completely new layout. Building completely new station /track layout on a slightly different site/alignment.
What is the timescale for completing this work??

 

Excellent work! The station building nicely echoes Tenterden and that is a socking great carriage shed! Just a bit surprised by the location of the (Hawkhurst?) signal box, or is it non-functioning? I can see one issue is going to be parking space (shared with NR), the railway sure as hell won't want the fairly busy approach road from Robertsbridge chokes with parked cars. However, if they encourage people to arrive by train (surely one of the main aims of the project?) then they could actually reduce traffic in the village.... Fascinating stuff, thanks for posting the link Richard.

Foxy

 

I note that the village hall is almost opposite with a reasonable size car park at the rear. It would seem sensible to arrive at a deal to use that (useful little earner for village if just a modest amount requested) as I too am surprised that the LA thinks the present station car park is big enough (looking to the future of course). See the conditions on the application page.

 

A nice little boozer opposite in station road as well....

 

On the subject of car parking it may be that the station car park could be considered sufficient as the commuter traffic will use it during the week and the RVR at weekends.

 

Don't know what other car parks are available in the area but at 121 spaces it appears quite generous when compared with 35 spaces at Matlock/Peak rail. Agreed there is always the supermarket car park there.

 

I suppose that planning permission for Robertsbridge station is tacit approval for the whole line..

Sounds good to me.

 

I Disagree. The project has only received conditional planning permission and para 10 of the conditions though marked as informative states:

 

I think the the word 'tacit' (thus provisional with reservations) was fair, as used by Philw2 and for the following reason. The route is safeguarded in the Local Plan (isn't it?). In the event of planning consent being applied for, one expects the LA to accept that all except a possible Objection by the Highways Agency to such application could result. It is its land that would require consent for a ROW across it and this will almost certainly result in a PI. I am assuming the ROW was cancelled when the Orders for the Robertsbridge A21 bypass were confirmed by the SoS?

Looking positively, as the crossing is near to the roundabout, speeds are low at this point (what is the limit actually - it ought to be no more than 40mph) so the lowering of the barriers would not be likely to cause rear end shunts. I imagine the control of queuing traffic on the north side could be an issue, anyone have bright ideas how this could be achieved? Is it known what the AADF on this stretch is?

 

I read through all the documents when the planning application first appeared on this thread. From what I read the level crossings are going to be a very tough nut to crack. One highways agency consulted (not national - local but cannot recall which one) actually suggested that the application should be kicked into touch because it was pointless building the station when there was no agreement that the crossings would be permitted. I think it was mentioned in response that only those matters covered in the application were up for consideration and the crossings were a problem for another day. When the *national* highways agency was consulted it suggested that the "informative" was added to make it absolutely clear that the crossings were a separate issue.

Note how the informative ends: "...following design guidance within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the relevant policy in force at the time of applying." If the relevant policy is that new level crossings are not permitted, which seems to be the way things are going, then it is hard to see how the RVR will get across the roads. I also recall seeing statements to the effect that although discussions have been taking place there is no sign of an agreement and the parties are a long way apart; similarly that crossings at grade level (i.e. a level crossing) are a no-no. You will have to go through the documents to find the specifics. Unfortunately I do not have time to go through them all again.

I do hope a solution can be found. I think there must be some hope, otherwise why would the RVR be spending so much money?

 

Could you say that again without acronyms for we lesser mortals please?

 

I'm not the author, but I should think...

LA = local authority
ROW = right of way
PI = public enquiry
SoS = secretary of state
AADF = annual average daily flow

Good competition - Now where do I go to collect my winnings?

 

Quite. This is an experienced team who have a track (no pun intended) record of delivering

 

Assuming permission for a level crossing is not forthcoming the only alternative would be a bridge. As the clearance required for rail traffic is less than that required for road and the road already appears to be slightly elevated to cross the Rother I would guess road over rail. Though whether the distance from other features would allow this, without excessive gradients, is questionable. Also in the case of the track bed the water table rather than the gradient could be a limiting factor if flooding of the track is to be avoided.

The question is should the RVR commit (possibly wasted) money to a feasibility study now or wait until permission for a level crossing is refused?

 

Well, given that the Highways agency wants to raise that part of the A21 up on a flyover type arrangement when funds permit, I would guess that an over-bridge would result in a level crossing at some point in the future! I would suggest that the speculation is getting no-one anywhere, and we should sit back and let things unfold. I am looking forward to the station being built, and if things permit, to going to lend a hand with the trackwork.

 

If as you suggest the Highways agency wants to raise that part of the A21 this would obviate the requirement for a level crossing.

A precedent exists in Staveley Derbyshire where the Highways Agency incorporated a bridge in their plans to build the Staveley bypass to facilitate the re-watering of the Chesterfield canal. Unfortunately Railtrack were not so accommodating requiring two extra locks to be built to allow passage under a virtually disused railway line.

 

Go to the top of the class Nigel ! I have been fighting the HA for decades on their road schemes so tend to get smothered in the jargon. Reading the other posts, I disagree with the opinion that sleeping dogs should be left to lay (lie?). Perhaps externally not create a big fuss, but within the RVR, they will be aware that this 'no level crossing' policy is a ORR (er, Office of Rail Regulator) and not of the HA (Highways Agency) or any CC (county council). There are plenty of level crossings reinstated on restored preserved railways and some on major roads. The reason I asked about AADF is that clearly a lower flow (say 20,000), would not lead to hold-ups and as I suggested, the speeds are not likely to be high (whether restricted or otherwise) so near to the roundabout. Anyone local knowledge on this?

 

Following my own post, I forgot to say actually PI is Public Inquiry (not enquiry, I expect that was a typo).

See this photo for what I mean.
< Cholsey and Wallingford Railway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia>

 

On this thread or another RVR thread, the subject of LC's (level crossings) was flogged to death some months ago. The fact is that LC's are not idiot-proof and anyone who allows one may be contributing to future accident statistics..

RVR need to consider a new concept in LC design to prevent the type of accidents that bedevil NR (Network Rail) nearly every week..