Moriarty wrote:It would be interesting to hear from someone with expertise in the topic though.
I've brought the matter up with some rail professionals of my acquaintance. There are essentially four options:
Firstly, keep the crossing open as-is. This is fundamentally dangerous, relying on users being alert at all times. This can't be guaranteed; the only reason that the safety record seems good is that the number of users is low.
Secondly, close the crossing to the public. This is cheap and easy, but obviously cuts access. In cases where there's a viable alternative route, this is the rail industry's preferred option.
Thirdly, a bridge could be installed which removes the conflict but is intrusive, expensive and causes issues with planning permission.
Fourthly, a pedestrian crossing can be fitted with signal lights similar to crossing the road at a signalised junction. This sounds like an ideal solution, but needs to be integrated into the railway signalling system. As a result, it's actually incredibly complex and expensive to implement in anything but the simplest situations.
In the case of Dalwhinnie, the rail industry's view is that the underbridge near the petrol station is an adequate alternative crossing as it's relatively close by and on good roads.